Talk:El Sobrante, Contra Costa County, California

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

WikiProject Cities

Wondering how to edit this U.S. City Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Cities standards might help.

The Leftovers

It's popular urban legend in the area the El Sobrante is Spanish for "The leftovers." Can someone substantiate this, and perhaps this is worthy of inclusion in this entry as it's popular local lore.

ANSWER: SOBRANTE = SURPLUS

SOURCE: http://spanishdict.com/AS.cfm?e=Sobrante+

Leftovers as lore

I grew up in El Sobrante and can attest that among local non-Spanish speaking persons the popular misconception is that the name translates to 'The Leftovers'. In fact the El Sobrante historical society newsletter is called The Leftovers, both as a nod to the usage and as spring board to call attention to and correct this misconception. Please see: https://www.elsobrantehistoricalsociety.com/newsletter-the-leftovers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.28.2 (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GET THIS, the following is part of the Wiki entry for El Sobrante in Riverside:

El Sobrante (Spanish for "the leftovers", "surplus", or "remaining land") is a census-designated place in Riverside County, California. El Sobrante sits at an elevation of 1,283 feet (391 m). The 2010 United States census reported El Sobrante's population was 12,723.

I think it's obvious the leftovers lore lives on 128.32.28.2 (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Malloy is not a vanity entry

Fizbin, I don't understand your reverting Judy Malloy's inclusion of her own name. I don't see it as simply a vanity entry due to her pioneering achievements in arts and science. How would these achievements count less than a comic book artist? Binksternet 13:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, it is a vanity entry because she has been adding the link herself. Also, the contributions to the underground comics movements by artist Joel Beck are a reflection upon the city because he spent his formative years in the town. Judy Malloy may live in El Sobrante NOW. But she does not appear to be FROM El Sobrante. People move all the time. It might be appropriate to list her current location on her own page, but it does not seem appropriate to list it here.Theplanetsaturn 21:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While TheplanetSaturn was posting the above I was editing the entry to get rid of the linkspam. It is still very marginal in my opinion.--Fizbin 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Malloy now has an article establishing her notability. I'm putting her in as a resident. Binksternet (talk) 05:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Because you created one today. Regardless, while her location may be relevant enough to list in her own talk page, you have yet to give reason as to why her residence is relevant to the El Sobrante article. People move all the time. She did not originate in El Sobrante or spend her formative years in El Sobrante or even live in El Sobrante when her notability was established. So how is her residency relevant to El Sobrante and the El Sobrante article? I asked you this a year ago and you never answered. In the meantime, the best consensus we have on this issue is against inclusion. The only one pushing for inclusion is you.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no call for consensus, we're not voting here, we're making an encyclopedic entry. Your argument about Malloy's relevance to El Sobrante falls down when examining the single other person listed, Joel Beck, who similarly did little for El Sobrante and in fact moved around, making his mark in Berkeley. Both Beck and Malloy need only to have lived in El Sobrante to gain mention here, there's no need to establish their fame in relation to how they have contributed to the benefit or detriment of where they live. Oh, and Malloy has created all of her most recent works while living in El Sobrante, so now she's even satisfied your unnecessary requirement. Malloy is going back into the article. Binksternet (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you're not even reading my posts properly. Beck grew up in El Sobrante. He spent his formative years in the town, and was shaped by the culture. Therefore his artistic endeavors are a reflection of the town. I've already stated this once before. None of this applies to Malloy. People move all the time. According to the entry you created on the woman, Malloy has lived in many places. Her currently living in El Sobrante is not enough to warrant mention. Once again, I am removing her.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine why you would conclude I'm not comprehending your posts... You've stated repeatedly that Beck was shaped by El Sobrante culture. I'm eliminating this as a prerequisite for inclusion in the article as it is not based on a valid source. Your avowal of Beck's foundational El Sobrante experience is original research unless you can show a critical review or scholarly examination of Beck that says so. To me, the listing of musicians and Beck under the heading Popular culture is simply a list; a list of people related to El Sobrante in some fashion. Only Claypool mentions El Sobrante explicitly in his art. None of the others have... Did Fogarty change El Sobrante by living there for a time? Did El Sobrante change him? Do we know if El Sobrante crept into his lyric? We don't. We put Fogarty in because he lived there. That's enough for Malloy. Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point. Fogarty is removed. As for your argument that someone who grows up in a town, goes to school in a town, and subsequently being influenced by culture of the environment as being original research, that is simply absurd. A native of a community achieving artistic notoriety has been long held in society as a reflection of said community. Nothing new there. Malloy has lived in multiple locations. She may move again tomorrow. Her current location may be relevant for her own page, but it is not relevant to the El Sobrante page. The consensus was against you when you vanished from this discussion. If you want to include it, seek a third party opinion.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only editors who have taken action on this issue have been you, me and Fizbin, who last checked in nearly a year ago. No recent consensus has been reached; Fizbin characterized the entry as "linkspam" at that time and hasn't weighed in again now that Judy Malloy's notability has been established via her getting her own wiki article. Your deletion of Fogerty is an interesting move... If that's the direction you want to go, then only Claypool and Kiffmeyer would be left under the heading. They are the only ones who have included El Sobrante in their art. As far as somebody's art being influenced by where they grew up, there are artists that is true for, and artists it is not true for. It's not automatic. If you want to take the position that El Sobrante influenced Joel Beck, you must find a citation for it. Check out WP:OR for particulars. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is that how it works in your mind? A consensus forms against you, you wait a year and then re-add the disputed information without discussion, then dismiss the previous consensus that you are ignoring as no longer being relevant? That is not a way to engender healthy discussion. As for Malloy's article, it has all of one editor working on it. That's you. Creation of an article alone is not sufficient in proving notability for inclusion. Also, I said nothing about the inclusion of the area in the art. I clearly stated that it should be limited to artists who spent their formative years in the region. Note that this includes every artist currently listed. I never once said anything about including information about the region in their work. As for the rest, again a native of a community achieving artistic notoriety has been long held in society as a reflection of said community. So much so that the Onion even parodied the concept recently. I do not need to cite something of that nature. Where a person is from holds much more weight in society than where a person has recently moved. I would have no problem with Malloy being mentioned in the article of her hometown. But should she also be listed in Oakland and everywhere else she lived? How is where she lives now relevant? How is her residency relevant to the El Sobrante article?Theplanetsaturn (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section we are talking about is entitled "Popular culture", not "People who grew up in El Sobrante". People who grow up in a place don't necessarily have that place as an influence. You appear unable to distance yourself from the kind of common sense assumption which would normally be valid in conversation and in daily life but which is classified here on Wikipedia as original research. The assumed connection must be proven here. Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many times have I asked you to seek a new consensus before re-adding the information? The most recent consensus stands against inclusion. You continually circumventing this discussion in an effort to forward your own beliefs of what should be included is nothing but inflammatory. Furthermore, you seem to have misunderstood how Wikipedia policy operates. Not everything must be sourced in the manner you suggest. If it were, no article would ever be able to move forward. Common sense remains common sense, and Wikipedia guidelines were not created to interfere with obvious common sense. Regardless, I'll be deleting the information soon. You're creating an edit war by not seeking out additional opinions as requested. All you have to do is abide by proper channels. Seek out third part opinions to support inclusion. The most recent consensus stands solidly against you, and no amount of blustering is going to change this.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One editor arguing with another editor is no consensus. Fizbin's contribution last year doesn't apply to what is going on now. I don't need your approval to continue to build the article in normal Wikipedia ways. Today, I brought in a reference in for a five-week-old fact tag and I've copyedited the article for flow and grammar. I'm improving the article. You've done what? Deleted the sort of content normally accepted into articles about places. This might be the time to re-read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not some random contribution last year. It was a dialog between three editors, you an I being two of them. You abandoned the discussion when the consensus was against you, and now stating that enough time has passed that you no longer must abide by the majority opinion on the exact same topic is simply absurd. You're persnal attacks are noted and dismissed as insignificant. You will please note that I have not reverted or challeneged any of your other contributions to the article, so please de-twist your panties. In the meantime, please go through proper channels for inclusion without continually re-adding information that has been challenged. All you are doing is inciting an edit war.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<--de indent. I'm adding a new section heading: "Notable residents". It's clear to me that the Popular culture heading has been saddled by User:Theplanetsaturn with more meaning than is required. The new heading is more inclusive. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fizbin has spoken: the addition of Judy Malloy is lame, and her page is essentially a vanity page.--Fizbin (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of Judy Malloy is lame? That's your argument? What a scholarly rebuttal. As far as being a vanity page, if her article survives Afd, its validity is beyond your judgment. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, seek out a third party opinion of some kind if you wish to retain the information.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your position on this issue is weak enough to be swayed by me bringing in enough third party votes to outnumber you and Fizbin, why should I have to bring in any at all? There's no good reason to keep a notable resident off the list of notable residents, so back she goes. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my position on it is weak at all. Suggesting a third party opinion is a better option than an edit war, and is recommended by Wikipedia guidelines. Obviously, I feel my position is correct. You feel your position is correct as well. And Fizbin no doubt feels that their opinion is correct. So a neutral party is required. As the minority opinion here, you should seek one out rather than just engage in inflammatory reversions.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author is notable, and clearly is a resident of the area, as referenced on her page. What is the problem? TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Malloy as a notable resident

Unanswered RFC from August 5, 2008 closed September 4, 2008.

Alternate El Sobrante

In southern California, there is a dump site, aprox 3 square miles in area, backed by a wilderness area. This is called El Sobrante.

El Sobrante Landfill 10910 Dawson Canyon Rd Corona, CA 92883

8.52 miles from Corona, CA 92879 (951) 277-1740 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.65.83 (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable residents

Once again, we're rehashing the 20-month-old argument about whether Judy Malloy should be included as a "Notable resident". The argument to establish notability has raised these points:

Does a notable resident need to grow up in El Sobrante to be worthy of being listed?
Does growing up in El Sobrante automatically mean they were affected by it?
Does a notable resident need to have been affected by El Sobrante?
Does a notable resident need to have had an effect on El Sobrante?
Can a resident who gained notability elsewhere be listed?
Can the Judy Malloy article be removed from consideration because one of the editors here authored it himself?
Should Judy Malloy forever be banned from this article because she tried to add herself back in August 2007?

In a nutshell... Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you will find the consensus in April of 2009 to be the same as it was in August 2007.--Fizbin (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Consensus' does not mean 'two votes against one'. Your own arguments of "lame", "vanity", "marginal" and "linkspam", and the lengthier arguments from Theplanetsaturn, fell short of their mark. You guys never put a well-defined reason together for excluding Malloy; you never formed a good template for who gets included and who doesn't. Binksternet (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have never (other than your own-created page for JM) demonstrated any notability. --Fizbin (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All, I came to this page from the WP:3O page. I've left the tag up on that page as I just wanted to offer my thoughts and observations for the first time. I haven't been able to find a guide to "Notable Residents", but on the WP:CITY page there are some useful hints. US cities don't seem to have a notable residents section so I'd question if you want the section at all. From reading the talk page it appears these people were once listed in the culture section and I don't see why that would not be acceptable. UK cities have Notable People section, look at Featured Article Herne Bay, Kent#Notable_people for an example of where every person has a cite to support their inclusion in the list, a cite to an independent article. Binksternet is obviously quite keen to include Malloy, so I would suggest a good way to achieve consensus would be for them to find this source. Could fizbin and theplanetsaturn accept that this should help provide better consensus? In due time it would be right and proper to cite all those listed, but then this is a work in progress and the immediate aim is for consensus on the inclusion of Malloy. Whilst writing I'd also point out that the Judy Malloy article could do with some independent cites, they mostly seem to come from her own website. That website has quotes from the Washington Post and the (London) Independent which could perhaps be found and utilised? I'm doing too much!

Another point is that the resident issue is a bit of a red herring. If someone lives in an area they are by definition a resident, so it only remains to discover if they are a notable resident - does the local news outlet mention them, are there essays which mention them and their residence, etc? It could conversely be argued that people who have left are no longer residents and should be removed from the list. I would suggest as per UK cities you go with Notable people and include those born, brought up, living in or influenced by the city.

I would also point out that you (plural) have never achieved consensus. The issue seemed to have died down and is now been resurrected. I would point you all in the direction of WP:CONSENSUS if you need a quick refreshment. Consensus only occurs once everyone is in agreement, which will almost inevitably mean that people will have to reach a compromise. It would seem to me that an artist who has been written up on the other side of the Atlantic working with major IT firms would be a notable resident if evidence as mentioned above was available.

Phew! Bigger digger (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus (at least as I have been using it) refers to the primary dictionary definition: "majority of opinion". If Binksternet can find some evidence that Malloy's residence is notable to the region, such as local news or at the very least some reference to their location from a 3rd party source, I would accept it. This is an article about a town, not a place to create a laundry list of people who might reside for an indeterminate amount of time and are notable specifically for action taken while residing somewhere else. Any name added to the article should provide insight to the subject of the article. Malloy as an entry does not seem to do this. Barring stronger evidence to support inclusion I would also accept majority opinion.

Regardless to the above, I feel that the list format needs to be revised and the individuals currently listed should be worked into the article. The section should not specify residents specifically, for the reasons you provide.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Working all the notable residents into a section about art would work very well. A paragraph or two about musicians, a paragraph about cartoonists and comic book artists, and a paragraph about authors. Bigger digger notes that "Binksternet is obviously quite keen to include Malloy" and I agree with that statement as far as bias toward musicians and graphic artists, and against hypertext authors, goes. BTW, thanks for The Independent article. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear here. There is no bias against hypertext authors. I don't object to Malloy having an article and I would not object to Malloy being listed on the page for her home town. On my end, exclusion of Malloy is based on a lack of any clear relevance to El Sobrante. And El Sobrante is what this article is about, first and foremost. If the subject of the article is not served by listing the individual in question, than the inclusion is simply trivia.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All, I assume my contribution here is sufficient? It seems you have resolved to list Malloy if an independent source for her living in El Sobrante can be found, and the two of you might get round to re-editing the Notable residents section so that it winds in with culture, art, etc. If you need anything else please just come and fetch me on my talkpage. Good luck, cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see agreement yet. Resistance continues from Theplanetsaturn who requires that a resident who is notable be relevant to the town, a concept that by itself hasn't been agreed upon. Even if all the editors here agreed that relevance to the town is necessary, the judgment of what makes a person relevant is the next hurdle. Binksternet (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<-- Some sources for you:

Having had a brief look at the sources there's a risk they're all in some way connected to her, but I think I'm now leaning towards the following: it's a verifiable fact that Malloy lives in El Sobrante and therefore it's a valid inclusion. It is relevant to El Sobrante as there is a notable person living in their town. I have previously posted on Fizbin and Theplanetsaturn's talk pages to create a response to my last note here, so perhaps they're not concerned anymore? Bigger digger (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned? Yes. Three of your four links were not significant in my opinion, but the fourth one - the pw.org link - was. After reviewing the criteria that they use for inclusion (http://www.pw.org/directory/criteria) I will drop my objections for now. It does appear to be the first online sign of significance that Malloy herself did not in some way generate. On the other hand I'd be tempted to nominate the Judy Malloy article for deletion for lack of notability. It was created and developed by Binksternet in part to counter the original rejection here of the Malloy inclusion, which Malloy herself added. It all smells.--Fizbin (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully admit that I created the article after looking into why it was that Malloy herself was being ganged up on by El Sobrante patriots on a mission. I found that it was true that people can't put themselves into WP... I was a newbie, so this was my first awareness of WP:COI. I then looked Malloy up on the 'net and found that she was indeed notable, and I made an article. I'm not hiding that fact. Fizbin, you've had 20 months to tag the article for deletion; if you thought it would fail, you would have Afd'ed it long ago, or somebody else would have. It won't fail the process, and you know it, so here we all are with a notable person living in El Sobrante. Let's move on and figure out how to write paragraphs that will bring more of an encyclopedic tone to the list of folks. We already have a good start with all the metal guys tied together by high school relationships. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable residents, again

Well, like clockwork we're at it again. The inclusion of Judy Malloy. As stated previously, I don't object to Malloy having an article and I would not object to Malloy being listed on the page for her home town. On my end, exclusion of Malloy is based on a lack of any clear relevance to El Sobrante. And El Sobrante is what this article is about, first and foremost. If the subject of the article is not served by listing the individual in question, than the inclusion is simply trivia. There seems to be a bit more support for Malloy this time around, which helps argue for inclusion. No offense to Binksternet intended, but the support of one new user after Malloy herself attempted inclusion was hardly persuasive. If the majority of opinion currently swings to inclusion, I won't fight it. Though it still seems like trivia to me. Same with Fogerty, before it's asked.

Regardless, let's try to settle this here first, and avoid an edit war this time.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know which readers would be poorly served if the link to Judy Malloy is included. The ones who would be upset if El Sobrante housed somebody other than comic book people and rockers? Which readers are those?

Your continuing crusade to rid the page of Malloy has never yet been based on a consistent set of criteria for inclusion. At the root of the problem is that Malloy is notable, and is a resident. You somehow don't think that makes her a notable resident. Everybody appears to want a link to Fogerty as a notable resident, but during his brief stay he didn't help shape El Sobrante and El Sobrante didn't affect him in any obvious way. The fight to keep Malloy's name off the list is unnecessary—it's one name, for chrissakes. Let's let the "notable resident" section display the notable people who have been or are currently residents. Binksternet (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone is unnecessarily hostile, which suggests that maybe you are to close to this issue. As for Fogerty, did you not read what I just said? I feel Fogerty is unnecessary trivia as well. Like I said, I disagree with her inclusion. But I am happy to go with majority. My issue is simply that (as per Wikipedia guidelines) the topic be respolved here before inclusion. The burden of justification is on the one seeking inclusion. that's the way it works.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Malloy is gone from the article, you are perfectly willing to avoid an edit war... demonstratedly less so if her link remains there. The burden of proof was completed when the article about Judy Malloy was written and not subsequently deleted. Having an article about Malloy on Wikipedia establishes her notability sufficiently for our purposes. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now you're simply being accusatory. I'm happy to avoid an edit war in general, and have clearly stated that I will abide by majority will regardless of personal opinion. You speak of notability... You're the one who added the Malloy page as justification of including her on the El Sobrante page and you're the primary editor on her page, so frankly, I think there is a bit of a conflict of interest in regards to your opinions on this subject. Additionally, having a Wikipedia entry alone is NOT sufficient to warrant inclusion. Wikipedia guidelines are quite specific on this matter. I say yet again: I don't see how Malloy (or Fogerty) are notable to the El Sobrante page, outside of trivia. And the burden of justification of inclusion is on those who wish the information to be included. And you seem too close to the topic to be considered impartial.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no conflict of interest. I am not "too close to the topic"—I have never lived in El Sobrante. You will not be able to find a connection between myself and Judy Malloy because one does not exist outside of my writing a Wikipedia article about her. I wrote the article only after I saw yours and Fizbin's actions to delete her from this article. With an edit summary of "Removal of vanity link. This will never stick. Cease." I thought to myself "this does not seem fair, let me perform an online search regarding Judy Malloy and see if the woman made a name for herself somewhere." It turned out that she had, so I wrote the article. It's not such a big thing, as I have written some 120 articles from the ground up. The one about Judy Malloy, however, is the only one I've written after seeing other editors gang up on a newbie who didn't understand the rules about conflict of interest. You can thank Fizbin for the existence of the article about her. ;^)

Regarding your requirement of proof; note that you are holding Malloy up to a stricter standard than that applied to Hammett, Claypool, LaLonde, Beebout, Kiffmeyer, Agnello, Beck, Fogerty and Walker. I will add a cite for Malloy and the issue should be put to bed. Really, there should be cites added for all the other guys under the heading "notable residents." Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not holding the aforementioned individuals to a stricter standard. My standard is simple, and I've explained it many times. I agree that Malloy is notable. But she does not come from El Sobrante nor is she notable for anything she has done while living in El Sobrante. I don't object to Malloy having an article and I would not object to Malloy being listed on the page for her home town. So again, no. I am not treating her any differently than any of the other subjects. And while you certainly have created other articles, you have admitted to creating Malloy's simply to justify inclusion on this page. And you're the primary editor on her page. You say I will not find a connection between you and her outside of Wikipedia. But it's within the boundaries of Wikipedia that I am speaking of.

As far as adding a citation that she lives in El Sobrante: I don't see where anyone has argued that fact. I simply don't see how her residency is notable to the El Sobrante page, and nothing you are discussing seems to address this. And lastly: Simply declaring that an issue "should be put to bed" because you think it should be, doesn't really end the debate.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 December 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. Clear reasoning to disambiguate from another title, neither of which are a primary target. Dab created at base name. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El Sobrante, California → El Sobrante, Contra Costa County, California – There is another El Sobrante in California: El Sobrante, Riverside County, California. Neither seems to be significantly more notable than the other, so both titles should include the county name. El Sobrante, California should be turned into a disambiguation page. Rublov (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.