Jump to content

Talk:Oakland, California/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

At the beginning of the article we say the Bay Area is the 5th largest MSA in America. The Bay Area page says it's the 6th largest MSA. The MSA page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_areas) shows the Bay Area as 12th.


Sibley park has a great view of the bay at night if it isn't too cloudy? Isn't this opinion? I can't really think of a good way to reword this without any weasel words. --65.16.61.35 22:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why that is even there. I considered removing it while I was there. Fact is there are great views from just about all of the Oakland Hills if it isn't cloudy. Fizbin 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hooray for Oakland.

Hooray for the number of murders it has every year?
New Orleans. Richmond. Atlanta. St. Louis. Birmingham. Detroit. Baltimore. Washington, DC. I don't think anyone would claim that the murder rate is the outstanding feature of any one of these cities. And yet they all have murder rates higher than that of Oakland. Oakland is a beautiful and diverse city, a brilliant stronghold of arts and culture. I'll stand by the previous anonymous commenter and repeat "Hooray for Oakland."
-Andy M. 07:03, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

There's an inappropriate redirect on the use of "Craftsman" in this page. "Craftsman" refers to a specific architectural style, yet it links to a general article on arts and crafts which does not discuss this architectural style at all. Arkuat 23:47, 2004 Jul 8 (UTC)

"Of course maybe we could all just be called Oaklanders and we could strive and work for a common cause beneficial to all and not be deterred by politically inspired classes." If I'm missing something, I apologize, but I'm not sure I understand why this sentence is in the midst of a standard recitation of demographic statistics from the 2000 Census. ffirehorse 01:43, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, good eye, ffirehorse. I always skip right over the demographic paragraphs. That sentence is kinda funny, but definitely inappropriate. (I won't say "be bold") --Andy M. 07:54, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Almost none of the neighborhood links point to appropriate articles. Waterboy12 21:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


Oakland Photo

I have noticed a trend away from using aerial photos for cities. Although I think the aerial views are nice, I have added a new photo that shows the Oakland skyline. This is a nice 'postcard' shot of the city and maybe others will think this is the best cover photo for the Oakland article. However, my main issue is that the vast majority of Oakland consists of 2-3 story apartment buildings. I live in Oakland and maybe visit downtown only a few times a year. In other words a photo of downtown is actually quite unrepresentative of what "Oakland" is. But at the very least I do think this skyline photo provices a little bit more of the character of the city than what is provided by an aerial photo. I would be interested to know other people's opinions. Konky2000

I think it's a good idea to replace the other picture like you did... although that was a nice pic of downtown, as you imply, that is not necesarily the focus of our fine city. However, I strongly disagree with your assertion that Oakland is mostly made of apartment buildings, but that really is neither here nor there. When I lived outside of oakland, my most fond view memories were of looking down over the city from the hills (especially the fire area, now too built up really provide the same views) and and the view accross lake merritt. I'll try to post one of my 6778346298734 photos from those views, if people would like...Reggaedelgado 21:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that would be a great idea. --Hottentot 20:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Maybe it was wrong to use the word Apartment buildings. It is true that south of Park Avenue Oakland is mostly made up of single family homes. I would still wager that most of Oakland's population lives in multi-family dwellings, but it doesn't really matter. Either way, the high-rise skyline of Oakland is not representative of what Oakland is all about, yet I think it still might be necessary to highlight. My dream picture would include downtown's high-rises, small apartment buildings, large areas of single family homes, and a glimpse of the SF Bay in the background. I have found a place I believe might have the best view of Oakland. It would be from the roof of one of a couple of apartment buildings near the corner of Vermont and Prince St. There is enough of an elevation that one can get a good view, but at the same time it isn't so high that the detail is lost in the buildings. Konky2000 06:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Knock yourself out, man. Sounds like a good idea. I recently had my computer & camera stolen (what city are we writing about?), so I'm digging through my archives of photos (sort of) looking for the promised pictures. Oh, and trip not about the apartments thing, but when I drive through our city I see mostly houses...although certainly many are multi-family! I just don't want the millions of people reading this talk page to suddenly have their beautific image of oakland ruined...Reggaedelgado 07:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Crime section reworked

I agree with above comments that crime is unfairly portrayed as the dominant image in Oakland. As mentioned earlier, many cities with far worse crime are glowingly discussed with crime relegated to a paragraph in mid-article rather than confronting the reader in the introduction. Thus, I moved the discussion on crime to mid-article as is done for every other city in Wikipedia and provided updated statistics.

GC

I removed the phrase "and are usually gang on gang and/or drug related" from the crime section because there is no reference two support it and the following two references may contradict it:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/20/MNGP3NM6D91.DTL http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/13/MNG7FL4KQU1.DTL

Although it appears that drugs and gangs are at the root of many shootings, the phrase I deleted may imply that most murders are committed against gang members or drug dealers, which is not supported by any evidence I have seen. --Honestshrubber 19:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Funky

In the "1960s & 1970s" section of History, I began to feel that we were getting off-topic upon mention of the "highly syncopated 16th-pulse" that is a characteristic of East Bay Grease funk. May I suggest moving that whole discussion to a dedicated page...by somebody who knows something about funk?

Ardnopes 08:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames

okay, after this minor editing war, we should have a discussion on what valid nicknames for oakland are. Oaktown is, i believe, completely valid. biggity biggity o i have heard many times. but "bump city"?! what is this from? i've never heard of bump city before.

Sparsefarce 17:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not either, until I did a search. It's from the book - Bump City, Winners and Losers in Oakland by John Krich, photos by Dorothea Lange ISBN 0933944012. Also the music band Tower of Power had an album about Bump City. This Oakland based band has a website http://www.bumpcity.com or http://www.towerofpower.com/ The Seattle group Doctorfunk http://www.doctorfunk.com/index.html has a song Livin' in Bump City: a tribute to Tower of Power; lyrics at http://www.doctorfunk.com/lyrics/livininbumpcity.pdf#search='bump%20city%20oakland' Petersam 00:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
A google search for "Bump City", as well as for "Bump City"+"Oakland", really doesn't reveal anything. I don't think it's significant. Furthermore, we don't want the nickname field of the infobox to get cluttered with a long list of 3+ nicknames for any city because some nut insists on adding things like the area code and the airport code to it, calling them nicknames. One or two nicknames is really all that should be there. Three or more is pushing the boundary. Dr. Cash 17:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Bump city is Oakland's nickname from the 70's, still in use by many who predate the "oaktown" era. I re-added it because it is actually in occasional use (certainly it is of historical significance) when I saw that "biggity biggity O" was there. "Biggity Biggity O" is (as its cumbersome nature suggests) used more as a filler in rap lyrics than in general parlance, in actual use "the town" and "the O" are far more popular than "biggity biggity O" ever was, but are not really oakland-specific enough to merit being listed, I think. I do agree, however, that only a couple should be listed. As afr as "510" goes, it does not specifically refer to Oakland but to the entire east bay. OAK is used, but since it is also the airport code, I think it could be safely ommitted.Reggaedelgado 21:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
So, someone changed it again, adding "o-Town" (orlando's rip off of our name). They put the comment "those weeren't true" to their edit, which I find confusing at best. Clearly he didn't read the talk page. Then again, I reverted it to what I thought we decided, but clearly I didn't read this page either. Reggaedelgado 06:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
From the Too Short lyrics: "City of Dope, I call it Oak. Can't go broke - selling coke..." On a similar note, a friend of mine with a little crack cocaine problem refers to the city as "Cokeland." --AStanhope 03:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just reverted the nickname list back to "Oaktown, Bump City, The Town", after someone added "The Yay". Argyriou (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

there are lots of nicknames that are valid that have existed throughout various periods of Oakland's history. "bump city" is clearly no longer in use, but was quite common in the world war (wwi, interwar, wwii) period -- it was a sailor's name for the city (citation: "second gold rush," by marilyn johnson). there are at least 8 to 10 others as well -- i propose a new section devoted to a bullet-point list of nicknames (i have quite a few for which i have citations). i would do it if i thought i could without messing up the formatting, but i dont think i can, so i wont.

O-Town/Otown is very very common (in the present).71.142.91.34 22:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is a lot, why don't we explain the various minor, out of use and historic nicknames in a portion of the article where we may add in some context instead of cluttering up a small line in the infobox?71.142.91.34 22:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The section on nicknames for Oakland is total B.S. I've lived in the San Francisco Bay Area since the late 1960s and have never heard any radio or television personalities ever refer to Oakland by any of the names listed, at least not on the reputable stations where Standard English is spoken. These nicknames may only be in the minds of a few baggy-pants homies. —QuicksilverT @ 05:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


the nicknames i hear on this website must obviously be from old people...regardless of what you old folks think...the only names Oakland are being called, (RIGHT NOW/ ahora!),is oakland..duh! and "The Town"...nobody calls it "o-town" or "oak-town" maybe 15 years ago...damn! get over it..leave it how it is...the names you guys put up are helluh corny...

Welcome to the slow burn that is Wikipedia. This is not the website where you'll find the latest street terms on established classic pages like ones for cities. No 'Oakydoke' in the nickname stack? No problem. The Oakydoke fans will just have to start establishing it in popular culture so it can be referenced. Binksternet 22:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

nobody asked for your sarcasm....thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.234.45 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 14 November 2007)

Nightlife?

The nightlife section is messy. I removed one part that seemed ridiculous and irrelevant. I don't like how there is a list of various clubs and there locations, but I'm too lazy to change it. Any ideas? Mipchunk 06:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is it here at all? The WikiProject Cities guidelines don't mention nightlife, and it doesn't seem to be covered in other cities. Names and addresses of every bar in downtown Oakland is definitely a bit much. I'm taking out the addresses, and I'll leave it up to someone else to make the decision whether to kill the whole section. Lagringa 10:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the formerly incorrect geographical description of the Rockridge area, but actually those two sentences (about bars and Rockridge) seem a bit odd and out of place. Where is the reference for the assertion that Rockridge is "known for its bars", and what does that mean exactly? Not sure how to fix it, and not wanting to be mean; just pointing that out.Tam knows 08:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Neighborhoods

I did some reorganizing here on the bulleted lists. There's no reason we can't fit these neighborhoods into a few major groupings. I took out a few of neighborhoods as well. A neighborhood association does not a neighborhood make! "Piedmont Pines" is the name of an association that is in the heart of Montclair. "Parkway" is an imaginary gay neighborhood. "Uptown" is a planned development project, not a neighborhood. "Lakeside Apartments District" is referred to as "downtown" or "Lake Merritt" and does not appear to be in use independent of this website. I suspect that there are a few others that were recently invented by either neighborhood associations or real estate developers and are only known to a handful of people. Lagringa 14:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Nogood, why did you remove Oakland Hills as a separate region? The hills are not part of North Oakland, though the border between the two may be blurry. The border between East Oakland and the hills is blurry, too, but they're not the same areas. I have not reverted your change, but I believe an Oakland Hills region is as justifiable as the other regions listed. Argyriou 22:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There used to be a seperate section for hills neighborhoods which can't be considered part of East Oakland; it was Lagringa who combined it with North Oakland. The main problems I see with having a seperate Oakland Hills region are that people won't agree on whether certain neighborhoods are in the hills or not, and the issue of places like Claremont, which is clearly in North Oakland and also at least partially in the hills. Do we end up listing individual neighborhoods in two or three regions? Nogood 22:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
There's a map of Oakland's neighborhoods at the Oakland Museum website (it's in the external links section), but they divide East Oakland into 4, and divide the hills into three areas. I'll post the map from "Rehab Right", which seems to match what I've seen and heard elsewhere better than the museum's map. Argyriou 23:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Geography

I've changed the lat/long location to a location with many fewer significant figures. It's ridiculous to locate to tenths of a second of arc a city whose land area spans more than 11 minutes north-south and more than 13 minutes east-west. Unless someone can tell me that the location given was the geographic center of Oakland, or comes up with coordinates for the center or City Hall, they should stay more approximate, and only use minutes-of-arc precision. Argyriou 19:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is necessary to include those geographical features. This is just an example but I think that if this were an article about San Francisco even a small neighborhood on a hill would be included. Also, Oakland has many freeways like 880 and 580 that go through the town very quickly, becuase of Oakland's up/down boundaries on the side of the bay. But going through Oakland on main streets like you would have to in San Francisco, like the streets MacArthur or E. 14 would take a long time.

Gertrude Stein

The Stein quote actually has nothing to do with Oakland, Calif. as Stein was born in Pittsburgh and her statement, which is found in Everybody's Autobiography, references the Oakland (Pittsburgh) neighborhood. However, I am going to refrain on changing the article until I can actually pull a copy of the source work and get some context. Ellsworth 15:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not true. The entry is correct as it is. There are plenty of sources out there that confirm this. Your explanation isn't very plausible considering she is not from the Oakland neighborhood of Pittsburgh and left Pittsburgh when she was very young. She spent most of her formative years in Oakland, CA. Lagringa 07:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Still haven't found the source I was looking for so it looks like you're right. Ellsworth 19:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Lagringa, could you add a citation for this? I believe you but it would be nice to have something more verifiable there. --thither 07:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Economy

Where is the economy section?--Old Guard 02:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Should there be Oakland media and communications sections too? Media would be local newspapers, radio, web sites, cable channels, magazines, etc. Communications would list landline and mobile phone companies, ISPs, cable carriers, etc. Would these be part of the economy section? --Phil Wolff 23:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Climate

I'm removing some of the climate info (average yearly temperatures) because it is wrong. The numbers are clearly too low. I couldn't find the exact numbers, so I am not replacing it. I hope the climate chart I created is sufficient. Lagringa 18:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It's more interesting and useful than an annual mean, anyway. Good improvement. ENeville 15:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just reverted an edit by an anon who changed the part of the lead sentence that says Oakland is the eighth-largest city in California to say that it was the third-largest city. I reverted the edit because the source cited for the "eighth-largest" claim includes a list that clearly shows Oakland is the eighth-largest city in California by population. --Tkynerd 04:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oakland revitalization investigation

Hey everybody. I'm the student of Moscow State University (Department of foreign countries), Russia, and i'm on my graduation work at present. This sience work is dedicated to american cities revitalization and redevelopment. Also it is tightly connected with Oakland. The main target is to learn the ways of revitalization in Oakland, Pittsburgh, Baltimore etc.

So, dear Oaklanders or someone who interests in it, could you please describe me the way of redevelopment in your city? The main point for me is to know all about measurement that were made. When exactly did it begin? What were the steps to revitalize the city? Was the downtown take down and rebuild? Were the citizens settled apart? I'll appreciate very much for any detailed information.

Any kind of information would be very valuable for me! Thank you. Simon Freydlin Freydlins 18:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. Feel free to write me on this theme: boardpizza@mail.ru And please forgive me for my poor english.

East Bay Regional Parks in Oakland

Under the Attractions sections both Redwood and Sibley Parks are listed. While I too think of these as being in Oakland, they are not. Both are on the Oakland border at Skyline Blvd and are located entirely in Contra Costa County. They should be removed.

(The Sibley link should be to the existing page of Sibley Volcanic Regional Preserve, but I figure why fix it if it is going to be removed.) --Fizbin 20:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed. I'll add a section about the EBRPD Parks that border on Oakland.--Fizbin 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Stand corrected on location. There are two EBRPD parks in Oakland, and five that are on its eastern border. While the bulk of the land of all five are not in Oakland, enough for a mailing address on Skyline Dr. or Redwood Rd. does exist. I've modified the Attractions sections based on this info.--Fizbin 19:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

UC Berkeley partially within Oakland?

I removed the following from the article:

The University of California, Berkeley campus is located partially within the Oakland city limits.

which was subsequently restored. I will admit that the editor who did that was right when they said that maps are "really good tools for figuring this kind of thing out". But after consulting one, I have questions about this.

Sure enough, it appears at first glance that part of the UC campus does lie within Oakland, basically the bulk of the open space lying east of the Lawrence Hall of Science. But I question whether this qualifies as being "partially within the Oakland city limits".

The map I'm using is the triple-A Oakland/Berkeley map, which I trust is a good one, since it shows all relevant boundaries (city, county and University) pretty clearly. It's interesting, since there appear to be several small fragments of Oakland (colored yellow) surrounding UC on its northern and eastern edge, including one piece between the Claremont Canyon Regional Preserve and campus (the eastern end of Dwight Way and Panoramic Way). (Then again, these could be unincorporated county "islands".)

But is it really accurate to say that this is within Oakland's city limits? Since UC is state land, and since there's really no contiguous part of Oakland on its borders, it seems like a stretch to me. I am, however, no expert on these matters, so I'm curious to know what others have to say about this.

I stuck in a [dubious – discuss] tag here, so if you're certain that it doesn't belong, then please remove it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The city limits cut across UC property in a straight line right next to the Lawrence Hall of Science. It doesn't matter who owns the property; if it did, then UC Berkeley couldn't even be considered part of Berkeley. There is no unincorporated land in that part of Alameda County.
Somewhere on the berkeley.edu site there is a (very large) pdf that, among other things, spells out exactly how much of the campus is within the boundaries of each city and includes a detailed map of the eastern part of campus. I don't have it bookmarked, but you should be able to find it by searching for "hill campus".70.231.147.194 01:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
1990 LRDP (Long Range Development Plan?) Chapter 4 Hill Area Fig 10 p52 (page 4 of 8) shows campus is partially in Oakland east of Lawrence Berkeley Lab. The Botanical Garden is in Oakland. - http://www.cp.berkeley.edu/LRDP/UCB-Segmented_pdfs/Hill_area-Other_properties.pdf Petersam 19:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
2nd source - "...UC holds approximately 1000 acres of wildlands within the City of Oakland boundaries and adjacent to Oakland residences and businesses,... UCB Fire Mitigation Program 2005 Annual Report (page 7 of 31) http://oep.berkeley.edu/pdf/FireProjects/OtherDocs/ARfire_2005.pdf - Petersam 19:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Good work, that. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The Town

Yes, "The Town" is a valid nickname for Oakland. I've heard it used more than once. Paul Haymon 03:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that won't do for Wikipedia. You need to source the information. --Tkynerd 03:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. "Oaktown" isn't sourced. I'm removing it as well until sources can be found for both. Paul Haymon 05:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I found a source for "The Town". Here it is: http://oaklandfocus.blogspot.com/2007/01/oakland-sf-bay-area-street-hip-hop.html

Paul Haymon 05:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Another source:

http://www.riceplate.com/rap/rap.php/ Paul Haymon 05:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And another source: http://users.megapathdsl.net/~hypnos11/info/yay_area_101.html

Paul Haymon 05:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Those two sources kind of look like they're copies of one another. I don't know if they're really reliable sources in Wikipedia's sense; which isn't to disagree that "Oaktown" and "The Town" are names for Oakland, I think everyone who lives in the Bay Area has heard these terms. But more reliable sources are always nice. Here's a newspaper article which refers to Oakland as "Oaktown," which might be an OK source, although it doesn't explicitly say that Oakland and Oaktown are the same place. VoluntarySlave 05:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You should know better; blogs not allowed as sources, ever.
Here are at least a few pages (not blogs) validating "Oaktown": [1] [2] [3] [4]. (The third one is especially good, though it looks like a skanky web-hos page, being from the redoubtable Julianne Malveaux.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
So, then, what's the deal? Are we putting both nicknames back or what? Paul Haymon 06:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I put "Oaktown" back as it is more than adequately documented. Someone'll have to find some sources for "The Town". +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but add the source(s) for "Oaktown" to the page itself, please.
By the way, what's wrong with this source, exactly? Paul Haymon 06:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm; looks like a blog, smells like a blog. Clue: "drill up" to the top page. (Interesting lexicon, though.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so it is a blog. Indeed. Now how about adding the source(s) to "Oaktown"? Paul Haymon 07:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
sorry, but where are you expecting to find the terms "oaktown" and "tha town" anyway? in a academic article? this is current slang -- slang never appears in writing until its old and/or dying, we all know that. these nicknames have been around for at least 15 years, hence they become noticable to folks like us who edit wikipedia. this is the benefit of the wiki -- we can put things in we all agree upon but canot find an academic source for -- all us oaklanders agreeing on this is source enough.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdewolk (talk • contribs) 17:39, 19 May 2007
Sorry, still a blog, which means no can use. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Article for North Oakland

Somebody should make an article for North Oakland(no, not pittsburg)Mahmud II 01:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you make it =) ? Just type in North Oakland, Oakland, California (that is the standard for neighborhood titles hood,city,state) and if the article does not exist click create article and go for it! BE BOLD71.142.91.34 23:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Motto, seal, flag

Here's another question on a related topic: does the city have an official motto? +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Paul Haymon 06:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hummph; I was just dinking around the city's website trying to find the city seal with no joy. Anyone know where this can be found online? I'd think that if there is an official motto, it'd be on the seal (perhaps in Latin). +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Does every city necessarily have a motto, or a seal? I mean, every city probably should, but...
At any rate, the information is likely available at the Oakland History Room at the Main Library in Oakland. Paul Haymon 06:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Wayback says that the article's infobox had images of a flag and seal in mid-2005, but the flag image was deleted as unexplained. You can see the flag at biocrawlers out-of-date scrape, at [5]. The image is sourced to [6]. There is a more stylized oak tree on many Oakland web pages and documents I have seen; I think that it is an element of the City's seal.--Hjal 08:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV violations & unverifiable claims in the history section

The history section of this article reads like a propaganda pamphlet for the Black Panthers. I am very aware of the racial tensions that have plagued this city over the past 50 years, but the writing in this portion is oozing with anti-white racism. It sounds like it was written by Huey Newton. And none of these claims are backed up by verifiable sources, or any sources for that matter. This is not acceptable editing for wikipedia. 71.109.136.107 16:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am disputing the neutrality of this article, particularly in the 1960's-1970's portion of the History section. It cleary was not written using NPOV. 71.109.119.207 17:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph reads:

The poverty and segregation which had developed in Oakland in the postwar years had helped increase the crime rate. The civil rights movement had yet to make its mark. Consequently, tensions rose quickly between the Oakland police and members of the black community. Inspired by the activism of both the national civil rights movement and the students at the University of California in Berkeley, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale organized the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense.

The paragraph basically says that poverty and segregation are problems here in Oakland. Tension rose and Huey Newton organized the Black Panther. So how is this portion sounds POV? And how does it sound anti-white racism? Please enlighten me. Chris! my talk 18:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree; I've taken the tag off, as you haven't made a compelling case for bias here. Please provide more details. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

1960s section

The problems of writing by committee. Here is the first paragraph:

"The poverty and segregation which had developed in Oakland in the postwar years had helped increase the crime rate. The civil rights movement had yet to make its mark. Consequently, tensions rose quickly between the Oakland police and members of the black community and the students at the University of California in Berkeley, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale organized the Black Panther Party."

I have no idea what this means. Nor do I know enough about the history of this time to fix it. But it is, particulalry the last sentence, pathetic. --Fizbin 18:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

O-Town

i hear o-town used a lot, its often used as a synonym in articles in the newspaper East Bay ExpressCholgatalK! 23:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

based on those sources i think they are reliable enough for inlcluision.CholgatalK! 23:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to discourage you or anything, but these sources are not that reliable. Sources from a dictionary or a blog usually don't work. Perhaps if you find a better source, then you can add it back. I will delete it for now. Chris! my talk 23:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Chrishomingtang. I'd say the East Bay Express is reliable enough, but Cholga had no direct references from that newspaper. --Fizbin 23:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Chloga, if you got the source from the East Bay Express, put the citation with the nickname, that way you can possibly avoid conflict. IL2BA regularly patrol this article. But before you got that source, don't put it back. Chris! my talk 00:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Lonely Planet is the leading guide with regards to travel, i mistakenly spelled it Lovely. Lonely Planet is a great source, like National Geographic or somthing.CholgatalK! 08:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if people even click on the links and diffs i offer up. =( anyways ask and you shall receive

ok so ive got an east bay express source now as asked and clarified that it was lonely planet not lovley planet and lonely planet is very much a defininative source in a class all its own when it comes to travel so im putting it back inCholgatalK! 09:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That reference (the East Bay Express article) is in no way a valid reference; it's an article about music that only uses "O-town" in its title. That in no way confirms the widespread use of this term as anything but a headline-writer's clever phrase. You ought to know better by now. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, if you do a Google search on 'o-town oakland' it is clear that o-town is a common nickname for Oakland, even if it is not used extensiviely in mainstream media. While it can be looked upon as slang, in is no less or more slang-like than Oaktown, over which there is no such contentious discussion. At this point I vote for putting it in the article.--Fizbin 18:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

But google will brings all the results whether they are true or not, so it may not be a good way to determine the widespread use of the term. If Cholga can really find a better source, that will be great. Chris! my talk 01:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

EBX always uses O-town as a nickname of oakland, what about Lonely Planet? Oaktown may not be in widespread use either, but from experiance and sources it clear is an nickname of Oakland in current use. Chris you say if i can find a better source that would be great, im assuming that means you find it acceptable in the interim on the good faith assumption that it really is a nickname? Since that what seems to be so there seems to be agreement between you, myself an and another user against one other user, a three to one consenus on which I will add it back in.CholgatalK! 04:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you do need to put a source next to it when you add to the article. Without a source, it can be challenge. I know it can be frustrating sometime sourcing everything you add, but that is how it works here on wikipedia. Sorry, but I have to remove it one more time to avoid conflict. If you want to add it back, you will have to find a source. Thanks. Chris! my talk 20:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, wikipedia has many editors, so only two or three people supporting it is not enough. Please don't put it back until more people supporting the issue or you find a really good source that support O-town being a nickname of Oakland. And that Lonely Planet source doesn't work. Chris! my talk 20:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is, its called consensus if people don't comment then those who do/are interested decide. There is no reference for Oaktown, why should there be one for O-town in the article? What do you mean without a source, I have provided many reasonable reliable sources, a simple google search will show its widespread use in unrealiable sources aswell. What doesn't work about it exactly? What about the two East Bay Express articles? What about the Raiders News article? This is ridiculous, all the independant sources support this, as does frequent additon by various users. It's clear this is the truth, not including it is just based on one editors irrational objections.CholgatalK! 20:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason Oaktown has no citation is because someone here has already decided based on consensus. You can in fact questions the legitimacy of Oaktown as well. And I think you have to learn what is reliable source. A Google search is not reliable at all. A search engine would bring out results based on its popularity not based on whether it is right or wrong. Lonely Planet is not reliable as it is a travel site. A Raiders article may not work either. If the nickname is based on an editorial opinion on the EBE article, that won't work also because it constitutes original research. Also you have to calm down a bit. I am not trying to battle with you here, I am just trying to enforce Wikipedia policies. Also the current citation doesn't work either, as nowhere on the article mentions O-town. Now I won't remove it just yet to avoid edit war today. But if I come back a few days later, hopefully you will understand what is reliable source and fix the problem. Chris! my talk 23:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I also check Google. There is an article here in Wikipedia named O-Town (disambiguation). It does point out that many cities start with an O are usually nicknamed O-Town, which included Orlando, Florida, and Ottawa, Ontario. Because of this widespread usage, claiming that O-Town is only the nickname of Oakland may not be a good idea. As a reminder, there is a band named O-Town (band) as well. Google will bring out all these result without distinguish between the cities. Chris! my talk 23:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don’t pretend to know all of the rules for defensible valid references here on Wiki, but I do know that internet searches make it clear the ‘O-Town’ is in common use as a nickname for Oakland. The fact that it is also a nickname for Orlando or a band are immaterial. Search for Internet pages that refer to both ‘O-Town’ and Oakland on the same page – there are thousands of them.
Now is this good enough to be able to include it as a nickname on a Wiki page? I would argue that it is. We are talking a nickname here. We can wait for the SF Chronicle or some other major news media to anoint it as such, but the fact is that those media do not normally deal in nicknames.
And compare this to the nickname of Richmond on that Wiki page: The City of Pride and Purpose. That’s not a nickname – that’s a Chamber of Commerce slogan. I lived in Richmond for 15 years and never heard that. But I have heard of Oaktown (particularly) and O-Town as nicknames for Oakland.
As I mentioned earlier in this section, I would vote for inclusion.--Fizbin 00:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there should be quite so much controversy over this. If something is sourced in printed media, I see no problem. Heck, even a non-blog internet source would suffice. If it comes down to a vote, I would likewise vote for inclusion. Paul Haymon 06:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Chris!'s comment on 13 August 2007 above, what's wrong with more than one city having the same nickname? I don't think anyone claims that it is a unique nickname for Oakland, just a valid one. Moreover, a city as large as Oakland should be expected to have more than one nickname. Paul Haymon 06:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I am not really against the inclusion of that nickname, I just thought that a better reference can be used. That's all. If consensus here decided to include it, then fine, let's put that in the article. Chris! my talk 17:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Paul Haymon 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, i say keep, plus many cities that start with O arent nicknamed Otown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.27.228.170 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 15 August 2007
No, bad idea; that's just the reason that "O-town" shouldn't be included here. Think about it a second: that name could reasonably apply to any city whose name starts with "O": Orlando, Oswego, Oklahoma City, Oneida, Omaha, etc. This makes it extremely non-notable. And I don't think anyone's ever going to be able to "prove" that this is a widely-used nickname anyhow. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources at the top of this section; we could put "O-town"[1][2][3][4][5][6], but that would be as ridiculous as not including a well-cited nickname. Not every city starting with "O" is "O-town - I don't hear people calling Oakley, or Orange, or Omaha "O-town". (Though apparently people do call Orlando "O-town". People in Florida keep stealing our nicknames because they can't come up with their own.) I haven't seen a similar number of references for calling Oakland "The Town", so that nickname doesn't belong. Yet. Argyriou (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

ILike2BeAnonymous does not support, Cholga, Chrish, Fizbin, Paul Haymon, Argyious do support, this appears to be a clear consensus based on widely agreed upon sources which have been found to be reliable. IL2BA continues to revert, how cany we mitigate this issue and resolve it?CholgatalK! 23:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all you can stop misrepresenting the facts and trying to stack the deck in favor of your view; "Chrish" does not support the inclusion of this nickname. Some of his comments on the subject:
"Because of this widespread usage, claiming that O-Town is only the nickname of Oakland may not be a good idea."
"I also check Google. There is an article here in Wikipedia named O-Town (disambiguation). It does point out that many cities start with an O are usually nicknamed O-Town, which included Orlando, Florida, and Ottawa, Ontario."
He may, of course, change his mind at some point. But don't go around bragging that this is some kind of done deal when it isn't. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Chris not Chrish said in his/her last comment that s/he wasnt against inclusion but that he was expressing a desire for better sources when they become available. Stop speaking for other people, anyone can clearly see that a previous comment does not make him vote against if he later says he is not against. You are smarter than using such an obviously false tactic since it can be seen just a few lines above that he was in favor. You should also make note that even in the quote of his you used, he is not disputing the nickname "o-town" he is just stating his observations from a google search and saying that o-town might be too common to merrit mention, somthing he later drops in favor of inclusion and finding better sources in the future. Change his mind he did and that is what doesnt give you the right or reality to claim he is on your side. I could have voted for bush in 2000 and for nader in 2004, that would not have made me a bush supporter in 2004, even if in the past i had voted for him. similarly chris may have been iffy about inclusion in the past, but his most recent opinions and statements are for keeping. read it over again, maybe you are confused. cheers! and i suggest you drop it, this is not worth losing sleep over, just like i dropped that whole lower case vs. uppercase downtown/Downtown thing a while back.CholgatalK! 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think O-Town should be included here because "O-Town" is a generic, formulaic nickname that doesn't mean Oakland specifically, it just means the most prominent city whose name starts with an O in whatever metropolitan area the speaker is in. Yes, it means Oakland in the context of the Bay Area. But it means Orlando in Florida, it means Ottawa in Ontario, it means the cheezy band in areas where there are no "O" cities... In short, it isn't really a "nickname", it's more of a generic placeholder.
"The Town", on the other hand, if it could be verified with a source, would be a great nickname, because it is distinctive and original and clearly means Oakland. eae 18:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
In the San Francisco Bay Area O-town does mean O-town though, even Lonely Planet which is the leading producer of travel guides worldwide has used it, in its internationally published books. "The City" which is a nickname for san francisco is similarly formulaic, but that is not reason enough for it to not be included, thats an observation, an opinion and those constitude original research which has no place in wikipedia. you might not like"o-town" and think its dumb but it what oakland is called. Buenos Aires Sydey Paris and Tokyo could be nicknamed the big apple just like new york and cape town delhi and moscow could be known as the big enchilada but just because its repeaded doesnt make them (hypothetically) unique nicknames of those cities. Many men named Richard are nicknamed Dick, or Danieles Dan/Danny but not all of them are. It would be silly not to mention William Clinton as Bill Clinton simply because it is a formulaic nickname, a common one. There are many Williams not known as Bill but rather Will or Willy or the Willter or no nickname at all. Besides not all cities that begin with an O are called o-town. Oakley and Orinda nearby cities are not known as o-town as far as i know. furthermore youre statement "it just means the most prominent city whose name starts with an O in whatever metropolitan area the speaker is in" isnt true and is unsourced, while the use of o-town meaning Oakland is well sourced. i live in the bay area, i hear it all the time, it might not be unique but then again neither is "the city" and there they are. i hope my arguement has swayed you. on another subject, i havent been able to find a source for "the town" it might just be too new, i personally love it and ive also heard all the other cities around oakland and san francisco suburbs in general being called "the towns" (sounds m. night. shamalaney huh?) have you seen it used in any printed sources?CholgatalK! 22:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not denying that O-Town can refer to Oakland, I'm just saying it's not a very useful or prominent nickname.
1) "In the San Francisco Bay Area O-town does mean O-town though"
Which is what I said above. But, in other areas, O-Town means Orlando, Ottawa, etc. "O-Town" is a generic nickname for a town whose name starts with an O. In the Yay Area, that town is Oakland. But Wikipedia is for the whole (English-speaking) world, even for people in Ottawa and Orlando.
2) "The City" which is a nickname for san francisco is similarly formulaic"
Dude, come on. No other place is called "The City" with a capital T and C. the largest city in an area might be called "the city", but that is not a nickname, just a way to refer to it without using its name. In San Francisco, however, "The City" has been elevated to a true nickname status. "The City" is not formulaic, because if you use those words to describe any other location, they would be lowercase ("the city"). There's a big difference.
3) I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with the whole Buenos Aires / Richard-Dick / Bill Clinton business. "Bill" is a form of the name William, and if that's the form Clinton prefers, that's the form that'll be used. "Bill" is not a nickname. Neither is "Dick" or "Dan". As for other cities being called "The Big Apple", if that happened, then their articles could also list "Big Apple" as a nickname - but you do see the difference between "the Big Apple" and "O-Town", don't you? Big Apple means New York. O-Town means "town whose name starts with an O".
4) "furthermore youre statement "it just means the most prominent city whose name starts with an O in whatever metropolitan area the speaker is in" isnt true and is unsourced, while the use of o-town meaning Oakland is well sourced"
A bit offensive there, pardner. This is a talk page, I can put unsourced and even untrue statements here. O-Town means Oakland, and Ottawa, and Orlando, and ..., and ..., etc. That's a true and well-sourced fact. From that fact, the conclusion can be drawn that O-Town means "in a given area, the most important town whose name starts with an O". While that obviously applies to Oakland, it doesn't make O-Town any more valuable of a nickname for Oakland specifically. A nickname should be something that if you hear it out of context, you still know what it's referring to. "The City", "Windy City", "Big Apple", etc all satisfy that; "Oaktown" satisfies it, "Bump City" satisfies it, "The Town" even satisfies it. "O-Town" doesn't, because it could mean Ottawa or Orlando just as easily. I understand that Lonely Planet uses it; great for them and their readers. But they use it only in context of Oakland - they would never use it without it being obvious which "O"-town they mean.
5) "i live in the bay area, i hear it all the time, it might not be unique but then again neither is "the city" and there they are."
Speaking of original research.... I live here too (I even lived in Oakland for a few years), and I hear "Oaktown" and "The Town" and even "The O", but I don't encounter "O-Town" very often at all, and when I do, I hate it, because of that stupid band.
But seriously. "The City", as opposed to "the city", is unique and uniquely identifies San Francisco. "The Town", as opposed to "the town", is a take-off on "The City", is also unique and uniquely identifies Oakland. "O-Town" isn't a take-off on anything other than the letter O, which is its only tie to the city of Oakland. Makes for a very weak nickname. If it was the only one, then it could be used, but Oakland has at least three other nicknames that are more unique than "O-Town", which makes it the expendable nickname.
6) a source for "the town"
I see people calling it that on blogs, MySpace, etc, but I don't see a definitive reference to Oakland as "The Town" in an acceptable source. eae 00:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Generic maybe but still valid, it doesn't have to be a nice nickname or a creative one, besides that is POV and we must have a NPOV on wikipedia. I don't see a differance between O-town and big apple, just like theres no differance between reffering to that QB as big sexy as opposed to calling a Daniel...Dan or d-boy or the danster. Its not our concern that big sexy is more creative and the others are just the first bit of daniel, -boy and -ster added the fact remains that they are nicknames, San Francisco is known as SF but san fernando isnt. the point is people call oakland o-town it doesnt matter why, or if another city is too. im sorry if i came off offensive in anyway it was not my intention at all, do you have any suggestions to not offend you in the future you would like to share =) ? You may hate it or not hear it but thats OR.CholgatalK! 02:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Could we try and find a source for "the town"?

From websearched that I have done it seems to be a legitmate nickname and now that I know what it means I have seen many people with hip-hop/urban styled "The Town" jerseys and shirts in Oakland and around the Bay Area. It seems to make sense to call Oakland "The Town" in contrast with "The City" or San Francisco. Oakland is the gateway to the suburbs and is the first "town" you go through on your way out to most locations except the peninsula or marin. Is there anywhere were you can request help with a reference?CholgatalK! 20:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think "the town" is quite ambiguous as a nickname because it can refer to probably any city. I believe that there is no reliable source that can possibly back that up. Chris! my talk 01:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

its not really ambigious, san francisco isnt called "the town" neither is new york, many cities that begin with an o or p are called otown/ptown that doesnt mean its not their nickname just because its a commonly used nickname, such is main street, JFK High School, or Springfield, State, USACholgatalK! 04:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"the Town" is actually becoming quite common, however much I wish it weren't. It shouldn't be that hard to find a source. -Nogood 01:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

im actually starting to like it, SF is the city Oakland is the town, hey nonamous, he likes it!CholgatalK! 04:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
As a nickname, "the town" (for any city, not just Oakland) is just slightly less bogus than the construct "the <fill in telephone area code here>", which says basically nothing about the place. This shouldn't be in the list of nicknames. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
its not at all bogus that doesnt make any sense to me, berkeley isnt called the town, the truth is most places are not called the town, and the fact that many places may share that nickname doesnt make the town a common unique nickname of oakland independant of other uses. well if oakland were called the 510 by many people it should be included but as far as i know its not, i have heard people refer to the east bay as the 92510 a combination of 510 and 925 sharing the 5 kinda by analagoy with 90210 it seems to me. but lets find a source huh? =)CholgatalK! 04:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
92510 is the East Bay Express' cutesy nickname for their blog. Nobody else uses it, at least not yet. "East Bay" is much easier to say, sounds better, and is pig-latin for "Beast". Argyriou (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I start to think that we overdo the nicknames inclusion here. One or two might be fine, but adding all the nickname for a single city is unencyclopedic, and possibly violates WP:NOT#INFO. Chris! my talk 19:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Potential sources for "The Town":

  • Legitimate source? [9]
No disrespect intended for Davey D, but I don't think so. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Less legitimate sources, but still evidence:

eae 01:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm convinced, the songs are great sources because they provide a unique source for current slang that hasnt yet made it into the mainstreem written sources but is reliable enough! awesome eaeCholgatalK! 18:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Who says they "is" reliable? That's quite disputable. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

what is my gramatical slip up which your so maturely taunt me for or the sources? I'll take the high rode (road is pruposefully mispelled in this instance) and assume the relevant. i have stated why i find them to be reliable sources and i think they are. any one else?CholgatalK! 21:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, here are some EBX sources: [25] - used in a quote. [26] - used in the title of a "guerilla poster series". [27] - part of a song title by The Team, but cited in EBX. [28] - talks about Baby Ray's song (see above). [29] - quoting a person. [30] - not quoting anything, just a legitimate use of the nickname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaefremov (talk • contribs) 00:03, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Those sources are good enough for me, the East Bay Express is probably the best source as it is a local paper who would know the proper nicknames, they sources are also many so they are not just a fluke or a one time quote of an uncommon nickname from just say one click they pervasive, lets go with it. thanks for looking into it and taking me seriously eae! =)CholgatalK! 21:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
As can be seen in many places here, "good enough" for you (Cholga) is a far cry from good enough for the encyclopedia. Your standards are a lot lower than those which need to be applied here. Just because you like something ("The Town" and "O-town" for nicknames, low-quality irrelevant photos on the Richmond Medical Center article, making an article out of the August earthquake, etc., etc.) doesn't mean it's notable or worthy of inclusion here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

IL2BA please just stop making insolent remarks about me and my "low standards" an article which i wrote and was deleted and the debate over the inclusion over a photo are irrelevant here. all in all you should be happy, we didnt have a dumb edit war for long, i got a lot of 2nd opinions some in my favor but the most in your favor and you won, dont be a sore winner.CholgatalK! 03:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe this is still going on. Nicknames are not a good information to have in an encyclopedia even if it is true. Chris! my talk 01:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

but all articles include the city's nicknames, so we cant make an exception here for oakland, the citybox templates have room for the motto and nicknames for any city and consesus has decided in favor of inclusion of nicknames so your rationale is a non sequitor. the matter of fact is that the town is now well references and should be included.CholgatalK! 03:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all articles have a few nicknames for information purposes. But we are overdoing it here by adding 4 or 5 nicknames. Remember nicknames are trivial facts and pretty unencyclopedic in my opinion. Also inclusion of nicknames violates WP:NOT#INFO. Consensus is a good way to gauge whether something should be in the article or not. But consensus cannot override policies. Chris! my talk 04:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm comforted we're debating as trivial a thing as nickname; seems to indicate all else is well. <g> Binksternet 05:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've gone and done the only reasonable thing under the circumstances: I removed the "nickname" parameter completely from the city box. When the verifiability, notability and other required characteristics of these nicknames can be ascertained, they can be put back. And hey: it's really no great loss. A city without a nickname??? Gadzooks! +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That is unacceptable, there is no consesus for the removal of that option parameter which is in every single city which has a city info box. You have been warned by an administrator for doing it please stop. Oaktown is not contended so that's content removal, several editors readded O-town many times and there is a 5 to 2 consensus in favor of inclusion there are newspaper sources. It is not your decision, you are being supercilious and disregarding the community.CholgatalK! 00:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I was notified; was that the admin that your sockpuppet wrote to? +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The listen and do not remove content against the wishes of the majority its not helpful and will only cause you stress, revert wars are pointless it will be in the history and if you continue to remove it it will continue to be restored. Well you are making a checkuser search so you tell me how that works out, apparantly I am now Chris, Cholga, Fizbin, "CrazyLark", and everyone else that disagrees with you.CholgatalK! 00:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop editwarring on the page. Cholga, the nicknames shouldn't be in the article since it is not settled yet. And 5-2 is not a consensus. Just because more people sided with you, does not automatically mean that you have consensus. See WP:CON. IL2BA, don't accuse people simply because they have a different opinions. It doesn't help resolve the situation. Please assume good faith. Chris! my talk 01:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

5-2 isnt consensus? well it was 5-1 until recently, and there are reliable sources for O-town. The disputed tag is being misused here, click on it and read the rationale for its use, it does not match this situation. IL2BA is not even participating in the discussion he is only removing it from the article, Fizbin put it back in 6 TIMES! It's not just me vs. him. How will it become settled, IL2BA isnt argueing on the talk page, his arguement is flawed, he says basicly the sources don't matter and he doesnt like it.CholgatalK! 02:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CON says "wikipedia decision making is not based on formal vote counting. This means that polling alone is not considered a means of decision-making, and it is certainly not a binding vote, and you do not need to abide by polls per se. Polling is generally discouraged," which means that a bare vote `counting is not a way to determine consensus. I can understand your frustration, but it is not an acceptable reason for editwarring. Chris! my talk 02:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY says "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and may not be treated as binding", so majority doesn't mean consensus. Chris! my talk 02:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sports

This article says Oakland is the only city to have teams in three professional sports. I do believe LA has teams in baseball (Dodgers), basketball (Lakers and Clippers), and hockey (Kings). Should this just be reworded t indicate that it is the only city with teams in just those three particular sports (baseball, football, and basketball)? Thegov2k2 19:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, because if what you say is true (and I don't dispute it, just have no interest in that subject so don't know), then you should omit all mention of "only city to ...", as it's too trivial to mention in an encyclopedia. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it is too trivial at all, triple wammies are uncommon, the Bay Area for instance is the only area with Hockey/Baseball/Football/Baseball all in one metropolitan area. LA doesn't really count since it has two basketball teams, the triple wammy refers to three differant sports in one city, although the A's will be moving to Fremont but they'll be known as the Oakland Atheltics of Fremont I think. In that case LA does have 3 teams if you count the LA Angels of Anaheim.CholgatalK! 00:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a pretty silly factoid to even state. Who cares? LA had four sports for a long time, when the Raiders and Rams were there. And Oakland had just the two while the Raiders were in LA. And if/when the Raiders move again, or if/when LA gets another football team, this factoid will once again be false. I say take it out altogether. eae 01:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we can use this as a guideline here: if it takes longer to explain the "fact" than to give the fact itself ("Oakland is the only city with three professional sports teams where those teams happen to be baseball, football and basketball teams ..."), then it ain't worth wasting space over. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well those are ifs and maybes. The yellow train line from A to B's terminal is at B, it will be extened to D in the futture but the terminal is still B until then. Similarly Oakland is the only California city with 3 sports teams for the forseeable future and unquestionably at present, i think they even brag about it.CholgatalK! 01:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Unquestionably at present, Oakland is NOT the only city with teams in three sports; LA has that too. The whole fact should be removed. eae 03:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Which three sports are those?CholgatalK! 04:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

So what, if Oakland has 3 sport teams. This piece of info is just obvious and doesn't deserve to be on an encyclopedia. Chris! my talk 04:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be included its not like its just thrown in there, its part of an allready necessary sentance and read better and is more interesting to say that Oakland is the only city with 3 sports teams in california. LA does not have three differant sports teams. They have two basketball teams and a baseball team, no football or hockey, oakland has baseball, football, and hockey.CholgatalK! 04:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a necessary sentence because it is so obvious. Chris! my talk 21:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nickname discussions

The following are discussions as to whether to include a particular nickname within the nickname parameter in the article's Template:Infobox City. The discussions will be open for at least five days after which time the consensus results may be noted and the discussion closed with {{Discussion top}} and {{Discussion bottom}}. Please keep in mind that, per Template:Infobox_City, the nickname parameter is "For a well known nickname(s)." The consensus is not whether Wikipedian's agree that it is a well known nickname, but whether reliable sources establish the nickname as a well known nickname. See native name, Gentilic, and Nicknames for prior discussions on the nickname topic. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. For the sake of this discussion, let me reiterate that point: the important thing is whether there are reliable sources for the nickname. Not "I really like it" or "I think it's notable because ..." or whatever.
And I'd like to ask that folks include citations here with their comments so we can see them. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
So actually, now that I think of it, this shouldn't be a poll ,properly speaking, at least not in the sense of "Yes, I think it should stay" or "No, it shouldn't be here". The only things we need to look at are the aforementioned reliable sources, no?
Out of courtesy to Jreferee, I won't change this discussion, but I think this is how it should go. If you have a reliable source for any nickname, list it here. Otherwise, unless you're challenging the source (not anything else), keep quiet (as I plan on doing). +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this discussion does look like a poll, but not really. It requires people to state their reasons. Also I think the discussion should consider whether nicknames should be in the article or not as this is the main reason we are having a conflict on this page. So we shouldn't just discuss sources. Though whether they are well-sourced is part of the discussion. Chris! my talk 04:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If we don't, then we will need to have another separate discussion later again. Chris! my talk 04:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point; the person who initiated this discussion (not really a poll) did so because they correctly pointed out that any nicknames included in the article must be supported by reliable sources. That's the whole point of this exercise, no? Not "I've lived there for ## years and never heard _____ used" (original research), or "this song and that song use that nickname" (not reliable sources), or "I think it's notable and should be included" (popularity contest). Does that make sense?
Sticking to finding reliable sources could, theoretically, actually make this a less painful and drawn-out process. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not missing the point. I know that we have to decide on whether all three nicknames have reliable sources. I am not saying that is unnecessary. I am just pointing out that we do have to decide on whether we keep them in the article. Might not do it in this discussion, but we might have to do it down the line at some point. Chris! my talk 05:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nickname: Oaktown

Agree. I've heard and used Oaktown many times. I live in Oakland. Binksternet 03:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. This nickname is well-sourced, well-known, and frequently used, both by publications and in informal conversation (yes this is original research). eae 03:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As per above, could you please supply sources here? Shouldn't be a problem if it's as "well-sourced" as you say. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. This is well-sourced. Chris! my talk 03:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep no one has even ever contested Oaktown, this nickname was outside the original debatesCholgatalK! 06:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree Well known and widely used. [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37],[38]--Fizbin 18:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nickname: O-town

Disagree. Nobody I know uses this term... but then, it's a big city. ;^) Binksternet 03:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point, this discussion's purpose is only to establish if the sources for o-town as a nickname for Oakland are reliable, that's all. It doesn't matter if you've never heard it. Would you consider The Oakland Tribune, the East Bay Express, and Lonely Planet to be good sources?CholgatalK! 06:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. This nickname has nothing to do with Oakland except that Oakland happens to start with an O. Evidence: at least five other cities claiming that nickname. eae 03:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

According to whom does it not have anything to do with Oakland? What is your source? Or is that your opinion? Lot's of nicknames are repeated, that is not reason to exlude them from every city or person that shares a nickname.CholgatalK! 08:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, per above. Chris! my talk 03:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree this name is well sourced in previous (above) discussion in various articles from the East Bay Express (local paper) and Raider's News (local football team's news service) and Lonely Planet (leading travel guide). Wether it's formulaic or boring in some persons' opinion is irrelevant and is ORCholgatalK! 05:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree Obviously in wide use as previously discussed, even if mainstream media hasn't jumped on it like they have Oaktown. One mainstream example: [39] --Fizbin 19:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nickname: The Town

Disagree. Never heard anybody use this in conversation. Binksternet 03:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Although less used than Oaktown, it is used by East Bay Express ([40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]) and several songs by several artists ([46] [47] [48] [49]). eae 03:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So far, you're the first to actually cite sources in your comments. Now, of course, the question is whether or not those are reliable sources ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
For starter, those songs aren't reliable sources. Chris! my talk 04:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
"Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (from here). Rappers and other musicians are "authors"; when they come from Oakland, they are trustworthy or authoritative on the subject at hand, that being Oakland, at least in regards to what it's called. Songs obviously wouldn't fly as sources for crime statistics, but a nickname? eae 05:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, to be precise, that's backing up the use of a nickname within a subculture (rap/hip hop, etc.). Not sure that qualifies as a generalized nickname one would want to publish in an encyclopedia. (I realize I'm opening a potential can o'worms here, but it may come down to a racial division here; non-rappers, and by extension, non-black folks, probably don't use this name to any appreciable degree.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a larger unknown rapper rap about Oakland calling it The Town. Big Deal. The point is that the rapper or his song is not trustworthy enough to be reliable. Chris! my talk 05:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's pretty racist you would charicterize rap music and a local nickname as pertaining to a particular racial group, i think thats pretty low, even for you IL2BA... shame on you. Besides black people are lovely and we are fortunate enough to live in a society where it doesnt matter the color of the person expressing their opinion doesnt matter their opiniuons just do and theres a lot of black people in O-town/Oaktown/The Town, and even if only black people said "The Town" it doesnt matter because this is not a sentance within the article it is just ONE WORD in small lettering inside the city's infobox, so such details are inconsequencial, it should also be pointed out that IL2BA's assertions that only black people and hip-hop related persons use this nickname are his opinions and are completely unsubstantiated.CholgatalK! 06:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, again to be precise, not sure we ought to be characterizing rappers as "untrustworthy" (though I might not trust them, although that's a personal thing). The point is whether they're reliable sources. Close, but not quite the same thing. Anyhow. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
If they are from oakland they should be trusted, besides there is the East Bay Express and that is very trustworthy.CholgatalK! 06:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of racism (I am a minority, as well). I never mentioned one word about black people. Also, not everyone from Oaklnd is trustworthy, that's just wrong. Chris! my talk 06:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Relax; that dart was aimed by her at me, not you. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. It can potentially used to refer to any town. Chris! my talk 03:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"Potentially" according to whom? Only "the town" can refer to any town, "The Town" means "as opposed to 'The City' in all possible facets". eae 05:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Source that says that, pleeze? (Makes sense, but it's just more speculation or "original research" until an outside reference is found.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The rules of English grammar indicate that proper nouns are capitalized and nouns aren't. Calling a town "The Town", as a nickname/proper noun, only makes sense when there is some other meaning besides the literal "the town", which is the case with Oakland. eae 05:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a source??? (I'm asking for a source for "'The Town' is a nickname for Oakland that is a response to 'The City' as San Francisco's nickname".) That part of it, not the capitalization stuff. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, that interpretation is OR, but I'm not suggesting we add that to the article :) I'm just saying, no other town is called "The Town" as a proper capitalized noun, and I'm proposing my own guess as to why: because it doesn't make any sense, for any other place, except Oakland. eae 06:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough as well: I'm not disputing you. You may well be correct; I simply don't know. That's why this should be all about sources, not opinions. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
So where's the source that says any other town is known as "The Town"? And how can one dispute the sources I've cited that indicate that it is in fact a nickname for Oakland? eae 07:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
<--- Where are those sources? I don't know; what does that have to do with the price of tea in China (meaning, with what we're discussing here)? You know, it may well turn out that even "The City" for San Francisco might be found lacking adequate citations and could be removed here. Again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record†, the only thing that matters here is finding a reliable source for this nickname.
†For those of you born after the advent of the CD, this may be a mysterious metaphor. See phonograph article for an explanation. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
<--- Okay, look at the top of this subsection "The Town", two lines below the heading there's a comment from me, which starts with Agree, and contains TEN sources which refer to Oakland as "The Town". Those are the sources I mean. Six of them are from the East Bay Express. The other four are songs. You're claiming songs aren't reliable? Also above, I cited relevant wiki policy that states that authors (and rappers are authors) who are regarded as reliable on the subject at hand (that being nicknames for Oakland) can be cited. If you're so dead-set against songs, how about finding some precedent for rejecting them as sources? eae 18:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
"You're claiming songs aren't reliable?" What is a nickname? Is it restricted to common speech patterns? Journalistic reporting? Published articles? Can it include poetry and song? Personally, I don't think we should include poetry or song; too much poetic license is available to the author. Binksternet 18:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Since you're the only person here to actually post sources so far, you deserve a reply. So I looked at the first 5 of your references. I'd have to say I'd reject all except #3 out of hand, since they all use the nickname in partial lowercase: "the Town". As you pointed out, this is quite different from "The Town" as appears in #3. And besides, all these are peripheral references, some in quotations, hardly ringing endorsements to the validity of this as a generalized nickname. I promise to look at the remaining references soon, but so far, nothing that convinces me that these are encyclopedia-quality citations. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
<--- As far as the capitalization goes, the more important word is Town, not The. People make mistakes, even journalists, and I'm not even sure which is more grammatically correct, capitalizing "the" in the middle of a sentence, or not. So I don't think the lowercase t in "the" means "the Town" is not a proper noun which singles out Oakland, unless of course sources can be found which call some other city "the Town". Beyond that, what about the cited sources seems insufficiently encyclopedic to justify a nickname? A nickname. You said that you reject 4 out of the first 5 references, and that nothing convinces you that these are encyclopedia-quality citations, but where is the wikipedia policy or community precedent which backs you up? I've cited what I believe is relevant policy that validates songs as a source for this topic. Your rejection of the EBX sources because they didn't capitalize "the" sounds kinda like you don't really want to accept any of them at all, because you just don't like that nickname. Which is a fair opinion, but if you want it to count you have to support it. eae 20:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to interject here. But I found a policy that invalidate those song as source. The WP:RS, which clearly defines what reliable sources are, says "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." For starter, I highly doubt that those songs have established structure of fact-checking and editorial oversight. And WP:RS says "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." Which means that those nicknames need much better sources than a few full-of-mistake news articles and lackluster rap songs. Chris! my talk 22:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
1) Works of art (which songs are) can hardly be called "publications". The more applicable sentence out of that policy is about reliable "authors" (in this case, rappers) - and it says that authors need to be trustworthy "about the subject at hand", in this case Oakland's nicknames. How are Oakland-based rappers NOT trustworthy about what Oakland is called? Yes, it may be considered original research on their part, but on THEIR part, not on our part. These songs are primary sources for slang.
2) There's nothing exceptional about the claim that "The Town" is a nickname for Oakland. Songs are perfectly valid sources for such a claim. They would be invalid sources for claims about crime levels, but not about something as ultimately silly as a city's nickname. "Exceptional claims" are "so-and-so was Deep Throat" or "George Bush doesn't care about black people". "Oakland is also called The Town" is not an exceptional claim. eae 23:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Can rappers be reliable authors for nickname? I doubt that very much. They might be trustworthy about the subject at hand (music in this case) but not nicknames. Also the songs violate WP:OR, since they introduce original ideas. Using original researches published by untrustworthy authors as reliable sources. I doubt that. Chris! my talk 23:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
On what basis are you claiming that rappers are not reliable sources for a nickname? Do you have proof that a rapper has ever misrepresented his city by calling it something nobody recognizes as a nickname? What motivation would he have to do that? Explain your claims. Back them up. I want specific examples of cases where song lyrics (from multiple unrelated artists) were used as a source, and were rejected by community consensus. And after that, explain what that has to do with the East Bay Express references I provided, and how it makes them any less reliable or trustworthy. eae 01:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Are rappers nickname expert? Of course not. That is just obvious. If you think they are experts on nicknames, then please enlighten me. Again the songs violate WP:OR, since they introduce original ideas. Even if rappers are experts on nicknames, like you said,you still can't use them because of WP:OR. (Note: I am just arguing about the songs here, not the EBX articles.)Chris! my talk 03:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Rappers are experts in slang, which is what nicknames ultimately are - slang. So yes, rappers are nickname experts. Can you make an argument to the contrary?
You're arguing because you are just against this nickname, not because your position is valid. You don't even understand the original-research policy! What YOU and I and OTHER WIKIPEDIA EDITORS write ON WIKIPEDIA can't be original research. But the sources we use are under no such restriction. Every source in every article on this whole site contains original ideas. WP:OR applies to Wikipedia content, not its sources.
In any case, not that I'm giving up on the songs as valid sources, but I'd like to point out that the only objection to the East Bay Express sources so far was that they don't all capitalize "the" in "The Town". The point is, "The Town" as a nickname for Oakland has sufficient sources. eae 03:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: [50]. This article shows that rappers are enough of an authority on city nicknames for the San Francisco Chronicle, and that means they're enough of an authority on city nicknames for Wikipedia, too. eae 03:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who don't understand the OR policy! Go read it yourself. It states clearly that "an edit counts as an original research if it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor." In this case, you based your case on your analysis of the ideas produced by the rappers. That is clearly what you are doing here. And yes, you are right for one thing, WP:OR applies to content, which in this case is the nickname The Town you favored. And the argument that we should includes the nickname in Wikipedia just because SF Chronicle did that is simply invalid. We are not news reporter. If we based this on WP:RS, you can't get a valid argument either. Rappers are simply not trustworthy expert to based upon. Even if they are trustworthy like you said, their songs lack editorial insight which makes them not reliable. Chris! my talk 04:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


Even if it is capitalized, it doesn't mean anything. It can still refer to any town other than Oakland. Chris! my talk 05:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it can't be, and isn't used to refer to any town other than Oakland. Back up your claim with a source? eae 06:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It is obvious that "The Town" is complementary to "The City" however this is irrelevant, this discussion is regarding whether or not it has reliable sources to be included as a nickname for Oakland. And I feel it does based on EBX articles.CholgatalK! 06:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The same argument woule apply to "The City," of course, since that could refer to any city, whereas I would include it in articles as a nick for SF and, I think, London's financial district. What else would you rule out? There are plenty of windy cities. There are millions of "big apples" in the world. Porkopolis should be unique enough for anybody, I suppose.--Hjal 06:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
So is that an "Agree" or a "Disagree"? Sounds like an "Agree". eae 20:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we've established (the songs and the East Bay Express articles) that some people call Oakland "The Town." There's a trickier question, though, which is if this nickname is widespread and long-term enough to be included in an encyclopedia (I've been trying to come up with an example, and I've decided I like the idea of calling West Oakland "Woahkland"; but obviously my invention would need to become much more widespread before it went into Wikipedia - this is an exaggerated example, but I hope you get my point). The San Francisco Chronicle article is a good source, because a journalist has investigated how widespread the use of "Frisco" is, and an editor has decided it's notable enough to publish it. What would be ideal is a similar article on "The Town" - one that discusses the nickname, not one that simply uses it in passing. I'm not really decided either way on whether "The Town" should go in, but it looks like most other city articles only have well-known, well-established nicknames; I don't think "The Town" is comparable in notability to, say, "The Big Apple" or "The Windy City." OTOH, the Chicago article does mention "Chi-town," which might be roughly comparable in notability to "The Town." VoluntarySlave 04:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Should it really matter who calls it The Town, but rather that its prevelant enough to have made it into Newspapers and songs from artists on Major Record Labels?CholgatalK! 08:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nickname: The O

Disagree, but very vaguely. Same reason as O-Town, except for <original research> a gut feeling that "The O" is not nearly as ubiquitous and might very well be unique, however if there are sources supporting this, then I'll agree. eae 07:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely Disagree, This is just unclear and unsourced. What the hell is the O. I start to think that someone throws this in as a joke. Chris! my talk 22:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've heard "the O". It's not a joke. It's not unclear either, though it does seem somewhat generic in the same way as "O-town" is. eae 23:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I did not add it as a joke, I have heard it used and thought for that reason is deserved to be discussed since the others were. They call orange county "the OC" oakland just happens to be one word, does anyone have a source?CholgatalK! 08:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nickname: Bump City

Disagree. It was only in use for a short time, and had no lasting power. Nobody uses it today, so it's not notable. eae 07:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious to its history and origen. What does it mean? Who used it? When? Why?CholgatalK! 08:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nickname: The Bright Side Of The Bay

Nickname: City Of Dope

Compromise?

How about calling a truce to the current sniping campaign over these nicknames, and agreeing to something like what's proposed in the section below, namely:

  • Only put "Oaktown" in the city info box, as this is the only nickname with solid evidence backing it up
  • Put the other two contested nicknames (O-Town and The Town) somewhere else in the article, in a section on nicknames, a section on popular culture (less good), or somewhere else.

What do you all say? +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes to proposed compromise. Binksternet 18:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes The proposal seems reasonable. Chris! my talk 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes Petersam 07:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
'Absolutly not How can you compromise with facts? Most cities include 3, 4 or 5 nicknames whether they are current or not. San Francisco for example includes Baghdad By The Bay, very uncommon. It isn't the (singular) nickname field it is the nickname(s) field. And accepting this "compromise" would be accepting your statement that only Oaktown has sources that is not true. O-town is backed by the Oakland Tribune, East Bay Express, Oakland Raiders News Service, and Lonely Planet; The Town is backed up by the East Bay Express. I don't think a section on nicknames is necessary, nicknamed don't need to be worked into articles unless they are not a play on the city's name. The section nicknames belong in has allready been established and it is the nickname field in the info box. A nickname that is not a play on the city's name without any additions might deserve a sentance or two to give context, or have an article unto itself if the city article is too long. But lets remember this whole discussion's purpose is to stop fighting over nicknames and find sources for any nicknames that want to go in the nickname field. Oaktown, O-town, and The Town all meet this measure.CholgatalK! 08:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
What about a rotation of nicknames on a regular basis? eae 06:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Extremely bad idea. How about if someone writes a prospective section ("Nicknames", or maybe under some other title) and puts it here for evaluation? +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
No - I disagree with the implication that Oaktown is more deserving than the others of being in the info box. There should be no nickname parameter at all, or it should list all sourced nicknames. Oaktown + "Nicknames" section isn't a compromise, it's a concession. No nicknames at all except those in the body of the article - that's a compromise. eae 07:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That's OK by me: I'm certainly not attached to having any of these names in the info box. Now let's see if you can convince others of this here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 16:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Well it doesn't matter if you two don't want or like nicknames in the box, consensus has been established for having that parameter in the box on the article for that template, and if there are nicknames which are properly cited they should be included there. If you don't want them in the box, you have to go to the box's article and argue there to get it removed from the box and every single city article that uses the box which i doubt you will suceed in doing so. Having them in the box keeps it simple.CholgatalK! 02:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Once again, I challenge you to show us just where "consensus has been established for having [the nickname] parameter in the box on the article". I see no such consensus. I think you're making this up as you go along. (And keep in mind that there are plenty of cities that use that infobox which don't have any nicknames listed. It's not like it's a required parameter or anything.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I like eae's suggestion to just have a section explaining any sourced nicknames and getting rid of the parameter in the info box. The field is misused with most cities, and certainly Oakland. It should be reserved for extremely well-known nicknames, like "The Big Apple" for New York which is recognized globally. Other, local nicknames deserve a section in the article. None of Oakland's nicknames are well-known outside the region, so why not dump the category in the info box and include an interesting section on the variety of local nicknames? -Taranah 05:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should either remove them all or keep them all. Since I generally favor inclusion of valuable information, I think we should keep them all. See Petersam's post about Detroit, Michigan, a featured article with four nicknames; inclusion does not necessarily detract from the quality of an article. This is why I think the best suggestion thus far is to remove them all from the infobox and place them in a section of their own. If they are placed within the article, they can shed light on the origin and meaning of each nickname. It would be a good addition to the article; people who are unfamiliar with certain nicknames can read up on them. It is fine to simply list them, but it might be better to explain their inclusion. Debating on a talk page doesn't help the article itself, nor the readers of it. Hopefully we can wrap this discussion up soon so we can devote our energies to other things. Paul Haymon 04:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I wuz bold and took all the names out of the infobox and put them in a new section, "Nicknames". Even tagged my own section w/{{fact}} to encourage the placement of some references. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You should not have done that, you were asked not to do it several times. And I am not making anything up stop accussing me of lying, its getting old. There is no consensus for removing it from the infobox.CholgatalK! 20:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I support that the nicknames being in its on section. But why are there still 2 nicknames in the infobox? I thought Oaktown should be the only one. Chris! my talk 23:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC) IL2BA is right on this one, nicknames are not required to be in infobox.Chris! my talk 23:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Support nicknames section. It's about 7 for nicknames in article and 1 with concerns about removing nickname in infobox. Might move it as a subsection under Arts and Culture as there is already a paragraph about other titles for Oakland by the rap and hip hop culture. It would be before the "There's no there there" famous quote about Oakland. Petersam 04:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I just copyedited and return Cholga's expansion of 13:00, 9 Sept which might have been missed when all his edits were reverted. Very nice expansion Cholga! Petersam 05:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Just moved Nicknames to Arts and Culture. changed infobox Nicknames comment to: See Arts and Culture - "Nicknames" subsection below; names have been moved from here to there; just before "There's no there there". (LOL) Petersam 05:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Restored see also for San Jose

San Jose is the largest city in the SF Bay Area, population wise, and is an obvious "See also" section link. I have restored it. Georgewilliamherbert 21:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

But how does that make it relevant for inclusion here? Just being another large city in the area doesn't make it germane. I've taken it out again. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree with keeping it out, plus it and other related articles are already included in the orange infoboxes at the bottom of article. Petersam 00:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
George, if you want San Jose in the article you could add a section describing commuter patterns. Many Oaklanders work in Silicon Valley. Binksternet 00:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
So what? Many Oaklanders[weasel words] work lots of places in the Bay Area (and even in the Central Valley). +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
IL2BA, If George wants to mention San Jose in a heading that references Oaklanders who commute, then I'm sure he'll be researching the percentage of how many Oaklanders are involved in the Silicon Valley commute versus the other lots of places commutes. I don't worry about weasel words in a friendly Talk Page suggestion to a fellow Wikipedian. Binksternet 03:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article cities and nicknames

Houston, Texas is a recent WP:FA which uses only 1 official nickname "Space City" in its infobox and includes other nicknames in its Culture section - Other nicknames include "H-Town," "Screwston," "The Big Heart," "Bayou City," "Clutch City," "Hustletown," and "Magnolia City." Oakland doesn't seem to have an official nickname so maybe the nicknames can go into the culture section. To see a list of other FA cities, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities#Progress and click on FA. Petersam 00:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wish that those other editors who are now arguing so furiously above over, for gawd's sakes, a couple of nicknames, would read this. An idea worth considering, says I. +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I already did. Chris! my talk 19:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a bad idea, why should we imitate the Houston article which is pretty much alone as most articles just list them in the space provided for nicknames, and IL2BA if you think its so trivial to argue over a few nicknames, why not turn the cheeks, its seems as if it doesn't make that big a differance to person for which it is not a big deal anyhow.CholgatalK! 21:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
See section below...Houston is not alone; 7 out of the 14 Featured city articles have written something about nicknames in their article or a separate nickname article and 2 out of 4 additional city articles listed below have also mentioned nicknames in their articles; which makes it 9 out of 18 or 50% with nicknames in the article as well as the infobox. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guidelines for nicknames are Nickname: Include from 1-3 informal nicknames (e.g. "The Big Apple", "River City"). So both could be done, especially if there are more than 3 nicknames. See Nicknames of Houston as related to its subculture and groups nicknames (not to making a separate article) or look at Seattle's article; it could be mentioned in the Oakland article, for example, that the little known Oakland nicknames are related to hip hop/rap subculture and include additional information as needed? Petersam 04:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

For comparison, here are links to all the city Wikipedia:Featured articles including the Nickname: used in the city template; plus nicknames mentioned within the article. Of interest are the separate nickname articles for Boston and Houston! Some articles have references for their nicknames.

San Francisco, California Nickname: Frisco[1], The City, The City by the Bay, Baghdad by the Bay[2]

Ann Arbor, Michigan Nickname: A-squared, A2, Ace Deuce, A-2, Tree-town

Boston, Massachusetts Nickname: Beantown, The Hub (of the Universe), The Cradle of Liberty, City on the Hill, Athens of America Boston nicknames

Cleveland, Ohio Nickname: The Forest City

Nicknames used for the city include "The Forest City", "Metropolis of the Western Reserve", "The New American City", "America's North Coast", "Sixth City", "The Land", and "C-Town".[9]

Erie, Pennsylvania Nickname: The Flagship City, The Gem City

Grand Forks, North Dakota Nickname: "The Grand Cities" "The Forks" "The Sunflake City"

Houston, Texas Nickname: Space City

Other nicknames include "H-Town," "Screwston," "The Big Heart," "Bayou City," "Clutch City," "Hustletown," and "Magnolia City." Nicknames of Houston

Louisville, Kentucky Nickname: Derby City, River City, Gateway to the South, Falls City, The 'Ville[1]

Marshall, Texas Nickname: The Cultural Capital of East Texas

...as the self-proclaimed Pottery Capital of the World, for its sizable pottery industry. Marshall is also referred to by various nicknames; the Cultural Capital of East Texas,[2] the Gateway of Texas, the Athens of Texas,[3] and the City of Seven Flags.

Minneapolis, Minnesota Nickname: City of Lakes, Mill City

New York City Nickname: The Big Apple, Gotham

...nickname "The City that Never Sleeps".

Providence, Rhode Island Nickname: Beehive of Industry, The Renaissance City, The Divine City

Seattle, Washington Nickname: The Emerald City

It is also referred to informally as the Gateway to Alaska, Queen City, and Jet City, due to the local influence of Boeing. ...Rat City, a nickname originally earned by the White Center area, is also occasionally used by locals. Another popular nickname that was given to the city by many of its punk rock inhabitants is "Rain City" - this name pretty much speaks for itself.

Tulsa, Oklahoma Nickname: Oil Capital of the World, America's Most Beautiful City

...establishing the U.S. Highway 66 Association in Tulsa, earning the city the nickname the "Birthplace of Route 66."[7]

San Jose, California Nickname: Capital of Silicon Valley

Newark, New Jersey Nickname: The Brick City

A few of Newark's nicknames are... New Newark...Gateway City ...Renaissance City

Other city articles

Detroit, Michigan Nickname: Motor City, Motown, Rock City, The D

...the city's two familiar nicknames, Motor City and Motown.[3][4] Other nicknames emerged in the twentieth century, including Rock City, Arsenal of Democracy (during World War II), The D, D-Town, Hockeytown, and The 3-1-3 (its area code).[5]

Orlando, Florida Nickname: The City Beautiful, O-Town, 407

Petersam 08:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Found: reliable source for Oakland neighborhoods

Rooting around on the web in search of information on Oakland neighborhoods, I've found what looks to be an authoritative source for neighborhoods: this page maintained by the Oakland Museum of California. Check it out; to use it, click on an area of interest, which will zoom into a smaller block of neighborhoods. Moving around will show the neighborhoods in this block (assuming you have Javascript enabled, I suppose). It's a very nicely done page.

I suggest we use this as our guide to which neighborhoods are really neighborhoods here. I haven't been able to find any other resources which have as complete a list as this one. We can use this to complete the list of neighborhoods here, and to eliminate those spurious articles (such the one on the "rolling 100s") which are in the realm of hip-hop and other subculture lore.

Anyone want to go through this and create these articles? I've been creating stub articles, simply listing the boundaries of the neighborhood. Oh, by the way: the maps don't show the boundaries exactly; you'll need a street map to figure those out. Not difficult, though. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was wrong about that last bit. You can view a map of the block of neighborhoods by hovering over the block until the "View street map" balloon appears. Click on that and a map will open in a new window, showing the neighborhood boundaries clearly marked. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Oakland Collection Online link has been in the External links section since 8 March 2005 with the caption "Explore Oakland's neighborhoods, walk the streets, stand atop city hall and look around." And the Oakland neighborhoods map sublink was added 27 May 2006. Petersam 00:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good; then you agree that it's a reliable source for neighborhoods in Oakland? I can only find a few entries in their list that I might take exception to; all the others seem correct. Still wondering if anyone wants to go through this and create stubs for all these places. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I will try to create those stubs later when I have time. Chris! my talk 02:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Quote function in citation

If you dont like the use of the quote function in citations, I think time would be better served lobbying for rule changes in Wikipedia:Cite rather than deleting the quote funtion from references. They are there to be used. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Using quote function is not necessary. Please at least explain why you want it. Don't just tell people to go change the rule. For your information, I have a suspicion that you are using IP addresses to bypass the 3RR rule. I will initiate a checkuser if I see another ip reverting. Chris! ct 00:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not understanding why this link is an issue. It's an official city program. Binksternet 19:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oakland, like most cities, has lots of "official" programs. I don't see how that particular one is relevant to this general interest article. If this one belongs, how about their graffitti-abatement program? the anti-sideshow program? the Port of Oakland's expansion program? See where this is going? We have to draw the line somewhere, don't we? Otherwise, this just becomes a catch-all, a dumping ground for random pieces of information, which is a tendency that needs to be guarded against everywhere in this project, if you take a look around you. +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've taken a look at some other city pages and most don't have a collection of links to their city programs. Also, Oakland's CORE program can be reached through the city's official website which is already listed in external links. I'll remove the CORE listing. Binksternet 14:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Demographic data needs updating

The U.S. Census Bureau 2006 estimates show estimates show 34.1 percent White 30.3 percent African American, 0.9 percent Native American, 15.6 percent Asian American, 0.7 percent Pacific Islander, 14.6 percent from other races, and 3.8 percent from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 25.9 percent of the population.[7]

North Oakland neighborhood split

There are several ways to define neighborhoods in Oakland. Realtors use maps that simplify (see Metro Rent's map) and gloss over certain hard-sell areas; police safety and crime stats maps use simplify as well but not in the same way (see Urban Strategies 2005 homicides map) while the city planning office uses maps with smaller areas named and defined such as the one developed by Fern Tiger Associates in 1982, available here, which unexpectedly calls the northeastern hill section of Oakland "NorthWest Hills". The way this article divides neighborhoods doesn't conform to any of the above methods; I wonder how the division was reached for this article. North Oakland (as defined here) includes the hills east of Piedmont. Most would call that Claremont/Montclair or Northeast Hills, and all would agree that reported violent crime and racial composition differ dramatically between the hilly sections and the flatter sections. I propose to split North Oakland neighborhood into at least two sections: North Oakland and Northeast Oakland. Such a split would affect the North Oakland, Oakland, California article, too. Binksternet (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Northeast Oakland". The list should have the hills as a separate entity from North Oakland, East Oakland, Downtown/Lake Merritt, West Oakland. The north hills have much more in common with the south hills than either do with their respective flatland areas. Argyriou (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It's true that Oaklanders don't use the phrases "Northeast Hills" or Northeast Oakland" in normal conversation, though those phrases exist in documents about crime statistics and home sales. Perhaps you would agree to "Oakland Hills" as the other neighborhood. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, the Oakland Hills, Oakland, California page is up. Other pages have been/still need adjusting. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There's no "Oakland Hills" either, apart from the common misuse of the name with respect to a geologic feature. The districts that overlap the hills are already named. For the most part, the really hilly section of Oakland encompasses Montclair. I don't understand why the articles on these districts aren't sufficient. Why is it necessary to concoct intermediate articles grouping them together? And if the relevant dichotomy is "hills v. flatlands", why not an "Oakland Flatlands" article? It all seems excessive, repetitive, and unnecessary. The groupings here in this article ought to be the limit. Tmangray (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Part of the problem lies in the designation of the larger parts of Oakland as "neighborhoods" when they are actually simply geographic sections (hence the use of modifiers such as "East", "West", "North", etc.), except possibly in the case of West Oakland. Even most of the neighborhoods are in practice referred to as "districts", as in "Montclair District" or "Fruitvale District". I don't know of any historically-named part of Oakland that is known as a "neighborhood", but perhaps there are some. Tmangray (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
We must be careful not to concoct ahistorical names for parts of Oakland, simply because we wish to group neighborhoods by geography. If we must group, then we must also make sure to notify the reader that our grouping names are not (unless they are) historic local names in common usage. For example, obviously, "Northeast Hills" is not a common usage. Nonetheless, with the simple addition of the word "section" or "area" (and no capitalization if used in the text since it is not a proper name) it might be just fine as a grouping header on this page. It would not, however, merit a separate article. Tmangray (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Chauncey_Wendell_Bailey

Why are Chauncey Wendell Bailey & your_Black_Muslim_Bakery not mentioned in the articles of Oakland, Santa_Barbara,_California?

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 00:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames revisited

I propose that we remove the entire "nicknames" section and any mention of them in the article.

To those who protest that this is too severe an excision of material, I'd like to point out that the current paragraph, consisting of 3 sentences, has 4 "citation needed" tags and no references whatsoever. This makes that part of the article an eyesore and a weak spot. Imagine coming across this article on some other site, with its content scraped from Wikipedia, and seeing all those red flags in the text.

To paraphrase another aphorism, if you can't say anything notable and verifiable about something, better to say nothing at all. There has been plenty of time for editors to supply valid references for these statements. The article can live without this bit of trivia. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The nicknames are absurd, I live in Oakland and I've never heard of those nicknames before. Verifiability has not been made at all, except for maybe that last sentence in the section, so the whole section can justifiably be deleted. WinterSpw (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

As absurd as the nicknames are, it is completely moot how often you may have personally heard them. Unless you're a cultural anthropologist or an active member of the medicinal Cannabis community, it seems you may have missed the hundreds of magazine and bus stop ads promoting dispensaries with these names that you'd unavoidably see daily if you really live in Oakland(I work there and do see them almost daily). Many people from far beyond Oakland are also well aware of them.

But another part of the wiki entry is maybe further off,"Oakland is a part of the Bay Area consisting of the numerous counties that share a border on the bay, including the three largest cities of San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland, which is sometimes referred to as the "Yay Area." [edit]

As it is stated, this intentionally avoids mention that "yay" has been one of the most common names for cocaine from the late '60's to the present. Any young or simply drug ignorant reader who heard this, may assume this might actually mean "yay area", as in a fun place to visit, though by highscool they'll all know what it really means. It seems the author of this section is hoping to gloss over that the nickname stems from the atypically high cocaine use in SF and the East Bay in relation to similar urban areas. The South bay and North bay are far more well known for meth, which is even more unfortunate, but these areas are not considered to be in the "yay area" by anyone who would ever actually use that phrase, which as clearly slang, not admissable source material. I'll check back in a few weeks to see if there is any debate to be had, if not I'll go ahead and change it accordingly.KVND 15:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVND (talk • contribs)

Notable people from Oakland vs. List of people from Oakland, California

The section in the main article, "Notable People from Oakland," this has only one person listed. Isn't it a bit redundant as there is already a more inclusive list linked at the bottom?Sausagebucket (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole section needed to go, so I deleted it. There's no use in having some kind of short version of the list placed within the city article. It would soon be the source of many additions, reversions and friction, and would tend to grow nearly as large as the List of people from Oakland, California. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

4th most beautiful city

WHy did they say that Oakland is the 4th most beautiful city in the USA? I'm am going to remove it, but first i will ask if I should or not. SO should I? Sidobagga (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That's definitely POV! Good catch. Eeblet (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ text
  2. ^ text
  3. ^ text
  4. ^ text
  5. ^ text
  6. ^ text
  7. ^ [51]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oakland,_California/Archive_1&oldid=1148852142"