Talk:California megapolitan areas

Isn't this original research?

See Wikipedia:No original research. --Coolcaesar 02:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed

Why would anyone consider this a true megacity... When there is a whole lot of nothing between the Northern and Southern halves? --Dave 06:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This seems a dubious entity. between Santa Barbara and Monterey, or so, there's just about nothing, as the map shows. john k 18:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

I'm classifying this as a stub because, other than a long list of cities, it is a stub. —ScouterSig 17:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Article redirected to BosWash

I have redirected this article to BosWash where the subjects SanSan and ChiPitts are discussed as neologisms, terms used in the 1960s to describe theoretical future conditions of cities in the United States. This was done because this article consisted nearly entirely of original research and was very poorly sourced. Only recently has credit for the name of the article been given to the proper source. Other than that, it existed as a geography mishmash which was based on the speculations and assumptions of editors. For example, the original essay only briefly mentioned the possible inclusion of San Francisco within the area, and actually specified Santa Barbara as the likely northern bound, unlike this article. The article received in the range of 50 to 80 hits per day, so it should still exist as a redirect but as a redirect only. There is no such place as SanSan, it is merely a word coined to describe a possible future and no reliable sources were cited or even exist to show that it is used more than very rarely in any contexts other than discussions of the original essay where it first appeared. Allowing the article to continue to exist in the condition prior to this redirection could only serve to harm the reputation of Wikipedia as a serious compendium of knowledge, and would be a violation of the pillars of the project.

Editors who maintain an interest in the concept of megalopolises and urbanization are encouraged to see the articles Megapolitan Area and Megalopolis (city type) for possible areas of contribution. Those concerned about this redirection, please see the discussion at Talk:BosWash#Notification of intention to rewrite article and previous threads on that page which show the rationale for removal of the false geographic and demographic content there per consensus. Sswonk (talk) 07:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to rewrite this article in the past to emphasize valid material. I think it would be better to rename the article to avoid the neologism than remove it. --JWB (talk) 08:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Same response as at BosWash, the term is going to be searched from time to time so redirecting it to BosWash takes care of the definition. Even though it doesn't really exist, the word SanSan is in published sources so there is a chance someone might type it as a search term, thus the redirect to BosWash. I like how you tried to clarify things here before, nothing against that. What little sourced material that is salvageable from the history of this article is repeated at BosWash, i.e. mentioning Gottmann, Kahn and so on. Bajalta California and the other articles I linked above can serve as places to continue writing about the theories associated with a California megalopolis if needed. Sswonk (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Bajalta California is exactly as bad a term as this one and as worthy of deletion. I would suggest an article on California as a metropolis, with all the neologisms redirecting to it and discussed in the article. --JWB (talk) 09:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is true about Bajalta. Bad way to point on my part. It always boils down to what you call it and what you are defining. Southern California sort of fits the bill. But to write about a megalopolis, you would have to adopt some definition of the term, and there are so many that it becomes a problem of synthesis and original research again. I believe that having the three particular terms that are now together in BosWash is a very good solution to the problem of junk articles that serve as speculation over the meaning of these competing theories by making it very clear that the article is about the word origins and usage and not about geography or demographics. The names such as CSA and MSA that the Census Bureau officially uses are the only truly noncontroversial definitions from a reliable source for regional groups of two or more legally defined minor civil divisions or jurisdictions. If the names "SanSan" and "Bajalta" were widely used and accepted names for the region, like Chicagoland is, I could see using them as redirects to an article about a physical location that is reliably sourced and well established. They're obviously not widely used and accepted, so treat them as they are, neologisms. Bajalta might be deleted if you try, I agree. SanSan already had a long editing history which made deletion more difficult than preserving the history and redirecting to an article where it receives no undue weight or description other than the facts about its coining and use. Sswonk (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

California, the Northeast, and the Midwest are actual regions with some degree of regional integration. The Northeast article has a section on the Northeast as a metropolis. There is nothing wrong with having an article on the Northeast or California as a metropolis and the various ideas that have been put forth for that region. --JWB (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"In fact, New Jersey is more rural than most people realize despite its stereotype of urban and suburban sprawl." There's a long way to go before that constitutes encyclopedic content. That entire "megalopolis" section is not sourced, save for a link to a tourism visitor guide site[1] of the type you find in brochure racks at interstate highway rest areas. Using your titles, "Northeastern U.S. megalopolis", "Midwestern U.S. megalopolis" and "California megalopolis" might be O.K., but the example text at Northeastern United States#The Northeast as a megalopolis is basically in a word awful. You say there is "nothing wrong"; I understand what you mean, i.e. per notability, but if it is done, it must be done right. Wikipedia articles routinely get top ranking in search engines, to the point of being the preferred source of information in the world. Because of the free license, they get repeated over and over throughout other websites. It really concerns me that BosWash et al. were not dealt with months ago and that no one before had taken the initiative to call a spade a spade. Sswonk (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't particularly endorsing all the content currently there, just pointing out it is a notable topic worth a subsection of the regional article, and a separate subarticle if long enough. Wikipedia is important and content needs to be improved, but this is an argument for improvement, not deletion. BosWash has been around for years not months, so most editors do not find it as objectionable as you. I object to the presentation of the name BosWash as normative, but feel a better way of demonstrating this would be putting it in the context of multiple authors' various conceptions of regional organization, for each region. Grouping Kahn's coinages together regardless of region might be interesting in the article about Kahn, but as far as each region is concerned, it would be better to group all authors' publications about that particular region together. In fact the SanSan article had significant discussion of those for California, that I've added in the past. I do not want that content to go away simply because the article name is a non-normative neologism. That is what moving to a new article name is for. --JWB (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your statement: I do not want that content to go away simply because the article name is a non-normative neologism, my response to that was written in the second sentence of the opening of this section: This was done because this article consisted nearly entirely of original research and was very poorly sourced. The fact that BosWash and the other two articles were "around for years not months" in no way supports your contention that objecting to the prior state of the articles constituted a minority opinion. To the contrary, the first of the Wikipedia:Five pillars shows what the policy of Wikipedia is regarding the previous situation. The three forms of content governance are policy, guideline and essay, of which policy is by far the strongest. Unfortunately, the existence of the three articles over time resulted in the spread of inaccurate meanings and origins of the terms through portions of the public record and consciousness. Often, the three terms were grouped together either in main article bodies or in "see also" lists. Due to that condition, internet links to them will persist for some time, and having those links directed to a page which displays the accurate meanings and origins of the three terms should over time correct the damage done in the past. Of course there is ample notability and scholarly research content to support the existence of well sourced articles on urbanized California in the future, and that is where you should introduce your well sourced contributions, either through editing an existing article or creating a new one. Within that context, you will be able to discuss the word SanSan, and also link to the redirected article SanSan if a summary of the word's origin and usage history is desired. Sswonk (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the SanSan article, it contains references to Kahn's writings and the VT study (both referenced), pointer to alternate division into coastal and inland (referencing should be at Coastal California), discussion of growth patterns in recent decades (needs references but is real and highly relevant information not OR, and in fact the references at Coastal California apply here too), warnings that the name SanSan is not in wide use and that coherence between North and South is questionable (both added because of concerns like yours, but if you prefer, they can be deleted), and lists of cities (I think these should be deleted as they are redundant with other California articles and not suited to the topic of this article, but there is no doubt that a megalopolis encompassing all major California urban areas would include them). None of this is OR although some needs referencing and some is better suited to other articles, and calling the article OR simply gives the impression you haven't read it carefully.

The article started out as an attempt to promote the neologism but was rewritten over time into a critical discussion of concepts of California as a megalopolis that largely debunked the neologism as well as comparing it to other ideas. It simply needs to be renamed to a title like California as a megalopolis. After renaming, a SanSan redirect could be created and pointed either to this article or to your general article on Kahn's coinages. --JWB (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I could provide you with an annotated republication, reposted as a subpage of this one, of the last version of the article showing exactly what was wrong if that is what it takes to illustrate the description of it as original research. I did read it carefully, several times over the summer and early fall. Here is how it started in the final version[2]: SanSan is a name coined by futurists Herman Kahn and Anthony Wiener (along with BosWash and ChiPitts) in The Year 2000.

The first citation does nothing but send one on a fruitless series of links that does not lead to a passage verifying the previous article text which followed it. The second serves to confirm only that Kahn wrote the original name SanSan, and that is cited (properly) in BosWash now. Everything written in the original article after that is not verifiable in those sources. The remainder of the old version is counter to a direct quote to the first cited source, which (after defining BosWash and ChiPitts) is "Sansan, a Pacific megalopolis that will presumably stretch from Santa Barbara (or even San Francisco) to San Diego, should contain more than one sixteenth of the population (perhaps 20 million people or more). These megalopolises will all be maritime. Boswash is on an extremely narrow strip of the North Atlantic coast; Chipitts, on Lake Erie and the southern and western shores of Lake Michigan and Lake Ontario; Sansan, on an even more narrow strip on the West Coast." The Inland Empire is by definition not maritime. Sacramento is not maritime. All of the remaining part of the original content, save the discussion of the VT study, was completely unsourced speculation, unverifiable. It would truly be a waste of time for me to highlight each sentence for you if you continue to not realize that. I have already explained both here and at the BosWash talk why redirection of these terms to updated theories would be wrong. SanSan, and ChiPitts, were both clearly defined as maritime. Neither previous article now redirected held to that definition. The only proper way to present the words to avoid misrepresentation of that verifiable definition is to show what was originally presented by Kahn, and then to link in a hatnote or "see also" section to articles about the updated meanings of a California or Midwest megalopolis. There is not an existing article for either, so until one is written there is no hatnoted link. Sswonk (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is counter to the Kahn source - it is explaining how actual development has differed from Kahn's vision.

As I said, you are welcome to make SanSan be a redirect to your article; that is not an issue. However the current article is about California as a megalopolis and only refers to Kahn's idea as one historical source. --JWB (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, BosWash is not "my" article any more than any article belongs to anyone, and certainly this one is not "yours". Obviously WP:OWN is in play for anyone who makes such claims. Sswonk (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Megapolitan area

"Megapolitan area" is also a recent coinage by a single two-author team, not a general term as "megalopolis" or "metropolis" are. --JWB (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"California as a megalopolis" is not assuming the truth of the idea that California is a single megalopolis, rather it is discussing the history of the idea. Having an article Flat earth theory is not an assertion that the earth is actually flat. --JWB (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not what I am saying. By having the word "California" as the modified noun, the entire state is assumed. I told you this was going to be difficult. Sswonk (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It is saying there is an idea of the entire state as a unit that is notable enough to discuss, both pro and con. It is not asserting the truth of that idea. --JWB (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggest "California megalopolis areas". You need to annotate this article with footnotes fairly quickly, i.e. tonight, or I will have no choice but to challenge it through WP:NORN. Sswonk (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I will annotate it as I have time. The WP:NORN page is for questions about what constitutes OR or not - it is not "challenging pages." Consensus for disputed article changes is via discussion between editors on the corresponding talk page. --JWB (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This talk page consists nearly entirely of challenges to this article as OR, save your opposition to its proper redirection from SanSan. There is no point to discussion when it is ignored. Sswonk (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Outside comment

I was asked by Sswonk to comment. I consider the present article there acceptable, as is the present title. I do not consider the present article OR.

But SanSan is a particular postulated region, and not the same region as BosWash. Therefore I do not think the redirect to BosWash makes sense, and I have redirected it to the present article, California megapolitan areas. There needs to be some cleanup of disam hat notes & double redirects. Which of the two alternative forms the present page should have as the title is in my opinion a relatively trivial question, and I suggest leaving it alone. It would be better to work on adding references and improving this and related articles. Nobody has to follow my advice, of course. I'm not going to argue the matter--this isn't my primary interest. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC) ~~ ~

Original research examples in the lead paragraph

I am pointing out errors in the lead paragraph that should be addressed as soon as possible; as this article is born of controversy, consider these comments life support.

Here is the lead as of this writing:

Traditionally California urban areas are thought of as two large megapolises, Northern California and Southern California, separated from each other. Other ideas have included a single megalopolis including both, or a division of Coastal California vs. Inland California based on cultural/political and environmental differences rather than transportation connectivity.

If this paragraph were a summary of the following sections of the body of the article, it would not need citations per WP:LEADCITE. This paragraph is not a summary of the following sections. Instead, it starts with what Wikipedia editing jargon calls weasel words. Any article that begins "Traditionally ... is/are thought of ..." must provide a source to explain when the tradition began to be thought of and who is doing the thinking, otherwise it defaults to an appearance of being someone's, i.e. the editor who wrote it's, opinion. It then says that these unknown traditional thinkers see "(all) California urban areas" as two large "megapolises" (a misspelled word assumed by a helpful spelling redirect to mean "megalopolises"), Northern California and Southern California. From the leads of the two linked articles:

Northern California is the northern portion of the U.S. state of California. The region contains the San Francisco Bay Area, San Jose (the third-largest city in California), Sacramento (the state capital), as well as the substantial natural beauty of the redwood forests, the northern California coast, the Big Sur coastline area, the Sierra Nevada including Yosemite Valley and Lake Tahoe, Mount Shasta which is the second-highest peak in the Cascade Range, and the Central Valley.

—This description includes large areas that are not even urban, and says nothing about a megalopolis.

Southern California, or SoCal, is defined as the southern portion of the U.S. state of California. Its population encompasses three major metropolitan areas, each of which have over 3 million people; the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area with over 12 million inhabitants, the San Bernardino-Riverside Metropolitan Area with over 4 million inhabitants, and the San Diego Metropolitan Area with over 3 million inhabitants. The region is home to approximately 24 million people and is the nation's second most populous region, behind only the urban seaboard of the Northeastern United States. Though there is no official definition for the northern boundary of Southern California, most definitions in use include all the land south of the Tehachapi Mountains, located about 70 miles (113 km) north of Los Angeles.

—This describes a location that encompasses, not consists entirely of, three separate urban areas, and says nothing about a megalopolis.

The second sentence of the lead paragraph begins Other ideas have included a single megalopolis including both, which apparently refers to the subsequent body mention of SanSan, which only traversed parts of both if the parenthetical possibility that the northern "San" was "San Francisco" and not "Santa Barbara" if the original (Kahn and Wiener's) idea is read properly, and only included the coastal locations of small parts of "both" by the broadest reading. The second sentence then concludes with or a division of Coastal California vs. Inland California based on cultural/political and environmental differences rather than transportation connectivity. The Coastal California article defines the area as:

The area includes the North Coast, San Francisco Bay Area (including Silicon Valley), Central Coast, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles metropolitan area and San Diego.

—This area includes twenty counties from Oregon to Mexico, and the linked article says nothing about a megalopolis.

The other thirty eight counties are assumed to be labeled Inland California, as that title is not linked. However, the following body copy makes no further mention of any idea that divides California into megalopolises based on those two regions. Because it is neither supported with citations nor with cited body copy in the sections below, this too defaults to an appearance of being someone's, i.e. the editor who wrote it's, opinion.

These are substantial errors. The policy against original research is designed to protect the readers of the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" from having to trust the unsubstantiated writing and opinion of "anyone" and instead permit them to rely on previously published works that are cited as reliable sources. From the Five pillars of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Content should be verifiable with citations to reliable sources. Our editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here.

JWB, who created this lead[3], wrote above when I stated that citations to reliable sources are needed: "I will annotate it as I have time." The time to annotate copy is as it is added to the encyclopedia, not some future time to be decided at the adding editor's discretion. This article has existed before as challenged original research, and resurrecting it from the history after the redirect and rewriting it in the current form has done nothing to remove that challenge. Therefore, I am tagging the article and urging JWB to either fix things or seek assistance from other editors to fix them. Sswonk (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Currently the article references the VT study for both Northern and Southern megalopolises and links two other articles with other authors' ideas of Southern California as a megalopolis, one of which you've already mentioned by name, so clearly you are not claiming the ideas are OR. Claiming that the idea started with the VT study would also be false. Is it only the word "traditional" you're complaining about? You're welcome to rephrase.

It would be great to have information on when these ideas first started, if there is in fact a documented identifiable start. However, we don't currently have such information. Are you asserting we cannot start documenting the subject at all without having complete information on its origin?

Regarding Northern California, on the talk page you should see my past discussion with another editor about adding material on urban geography to the article. The article is still low on urban geography and needs to be filled out there. Somehow you seem to be drawing the opposite conclusion that talking about urban geography is somehow wrong.

You seem to be complaining that since Northern California includes rural areas, it is inappropriate to talk about a megalopolis. A Northern California megalopolis would of course not have identical territory to the state or section of the state. For example, in the VT study their Northeastern megapolitan area is named simply "Northeast", with no implication that it includes the farthest rural reaches of the Northeastern United States. Neither does VT's "Piedmont" megapolitan coincide exactly with the geological Piedmont. It is common to not sharply distinguish a region with a single megalopolis from its megalopolis, since the difference only involves remote areas that are often not relevant to whatever subject is being discussed.

Regarding Southern California, the Census includes the entire LA area in a Combined Statistical Area which includes the several Metropolitan Statistical Areas mentioned in the article. The Census's criteria for combining areas into a CSA include measures of connectivity like commuting to work between the areas, which are highly relevant to the megalopolis concept. Adding San Diego is a bit more forward-looking, but is already referenced or linked 3 times even at this beginning stage of the article.

Regarding Coastal California, the article text does not say "Coastal California is a megalopolis" (a question I haven't so far considered), it says that Coastal vs. Inland is an alternate way of dividing the state, that may be more relevant for some contexts. Inland California is also mentioned because recent inland growth is relevant to the comparison of past authors' megapolitan concepts to today's reality.

Regarding Kahn suggesting not only San Francisco but also Santa Barbara as possibilities for the northernmost metropolitan area of his concept, this is a valid correction. It also supplies yet another reference for the idea of a Southern California megalopolis.

I am trying hard to assume good faith on the part of Sswonk, but have not been able to discern the rationale for the extreme statements that the article is OR and should not allowed to stand for more than a day. My view is that this is a new article covering a topic which needs covering, that it can benefit from expansion, clarification and referencing as can most of Wikipedia, and that editors should work together on this in a friendly way concentrating on actual progress in the article. --JWB (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In order to appreciate the seriousness of the problem here, please step back from your position as the writer and look at things from the perspective of the reader. As the first sentence in the lead paragraph was dissected above, I will attempt to illustrate the seriousness of only the errors of logic involved using it again, ignoring for the time being (as you did in your rebuttal) the weasel words. Try changing four ideas in the lead, related to classifications and descriptions of living things, to see why you are arguing the wrong side of the issue. Here is the lead sentence rewritten to illustrate the fallacy issue:

Traditionally animals are thought of as two carnivores, birds and fish, separated from each other.

Now that you read it that way, do you see the problem? "California urban areas" maps to the kingdom "animals" and "megalopolises" maps to the descriptive noun "carnivores", a descriptive subset of animals just as "megalopolises" may be a subset of all urban areas. "Northern California" and "Southern California", as you have used them, map to "birds" and "fish", divisions of the animal kingdom. The sentence is absurd, as I am sure you must agree. Most readers of Wikipedia would likely feel the same way. That is because most of us know these words. Most of us know that not all birds or fish are carnivores, and that carnivorousness is not the single exclusive descriptive attribute of groups of animal kingdom members. Now picture a reader in Africa or South Asia, or even a university student in the U.K. who doesn't know much geography, reading the first sentence of the article. They know little or nothing about the things you have said about California at all, just that they got here after getting search results or clicking a wikilink. They don't realize that what is written in the article lead depends on a thousand-word explanation you have put on the talk page. And, they can't refer to the linked articles, because they don't discuss the areas in the way you are referring to them, i.e. "megalopolises". Finally, they can't get help from the sources the lead is presenting a summary of because there aren't any. There aren't any footnotes to the statement, and there isn't any cited expansion on the lead statement in the body of the article. And, you or any other editor won't find any, because a reliable source wouldn't make such as statement. It is not my job to fix your mistakes, it is your reputation as creator of this article that is a potential problem for you, not me. Instead of spending time defending the article as written, you should spend time fixing it and citing it according to policy.

As for questioning my good faith, you shouldn't do that. Although I didn't realize at first that I needed to, I am giving you pointers. I did not write that the article "should not (be) allowed to stand for more than a day", you did. I wrote that you need to produce footnotes or I will challenge the article as original research, which I have. Sswonk (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Megaregion or CSA?

An IP user feels gives off the feeling this article refers to strictly combined statistical areas? However the title is clearly megapolitan areas, and the Southern California megaregion is made up of parts of California and Baja California as defined by multiple sources, due to the extension of the urban area as well as economic regions, though the Baja part is very small in comparison to the rest of the region, with only two million inhabitants. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California megapolitan areas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723181802/http://www.icfdn.org/publications/blurredborders/39sdtjataglance.htm to http://www.icfdn.org/publications/blurredborders/39sdtjataglance.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on California megapolitan areas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219193825/http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/2006_North_American_Container_Traffic.pdf to http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/2006_North_American_Container_Traffic.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512151725/http://usmayors.org/metroeconomies/0107/GMPreport.pdf to http://www.usmayors.org/metroeconomies/0107/GMPreport.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the point of this article?

"Megapolitan area" isn't a standard term, and has no clear meaning. The article seems to not be able to make up its mind about whether there are two megapolitan areas or one. If there's just one, then the plural "megapolitan areas" in the title isn't appropriate. Articles on the Northern California Megaregion and Southern California already exist, and insofar as these are the two megapolitan areas, it's not clear why we also need an article for both of them at once. The case for there being one California megapolitan area seems weaker, but insofar as we need to have an article discussing this case, it should probably have its own article, instead of being included ambiguously in an article that's largely about Northern California and Southern California as separate areas. The "Area composition" section is not divided into regions larger than a CSA, which makes it appear to be taking the stance that there is one megapolitan area, despite not saying this explicitly, and despite the article previously pointing out that the case for two is stronger than the case for one. There seems to be no clear criteria for inclusion of the counties in the list (also, why does it include Redding?), despite giving the appearance of objectivity. It also doesn't explain what "area of influence" is supposed to mean. 2605:E000:1314:8F3C:41CD:B1C1:805D:3799 (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed edits

Large portions of this article (specifically, the "Population" and "Area composition" sections, portions of the "Region" section, the title of the "notable conceptions of California as a megalopolis" section, and the infobox and navbox) focus on the notion of a single megalopolis covering all the major urban areas of California. But there is no such megalopolis stretching throughout California, there are no cited sources saying that there is (the article cites the book "The Year 2000", mentioning Sansan, but that book only predicted that such a megalopolis would arise in the future, rather than saying it actually exits), and other parts of the article acknowledge this fact. Furthermore, the lists of counties and of urban agglomerations in the supposed California megalopolis are not sourced, and appear to be made up by wikipedia editors. These portions of the article should be removed or rewritten. I attempted to remove them, but my edits were reverted. 24.7.24.119 (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears that the problem was just that not all of my edits came with an edit summary, rather than with the content, so I'm doing it again. 24.7.24.119 (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)