Talk:Mission Viejo, California

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

merger[edit]

Merge teh seal for great justice Zopwx2 08:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! For great justice. -- phoebe/(talk) 10:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source for apartment scandal[edit]

Requesting a source to verify the paragraph about alleged apartment scandal. Weltall 08:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've given Slightlyslack more than enough time to cite his addition with something more specific than "the L.A. Times printed it". I am deleting the paragraph about the scandal until he gives more concrete evidence. Weltall 22:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Mission Viejo[edit]

The lake in Mission Viejo is not Public. It is a private lake run by the Lake Mission Viejo Association. From it's opening circa 1979 until 2001 I was a dues paying member having owned 3 properties at different times from 1978. It is 127 acres bounded by Olympiad Road on the North, Marguerite Parkway on the West and Alicia Parkway on the South. There are three beaches used exclusively by owners of the respective housing projects and two beaches open to all lake members.

In 1984, the summer Olympic Games used Mission Viejo as the road course for the bicycle competition after which O'Neill parkway was renamed Olympiad road, having been the portion of the course where the start/finish line was located at the North end of the lake. Parts of this course have been used for an annual charity triathlon.

68.214.80.144 22:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Joel Davis[reply]


Indeed Lake Mission Viejo is Private open to most residents of Mission Viejo. Despite this Mission Viejo residents who live in Aegean Hills, and Aegean Heights are prohibited from joining the lake association. Members of these communities have for years been willing to pay the dues to join, yet the Lake association would rather treat the residents of the two a fore mentioned communities, as second class citizens.--Subman758 (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mall[edit]

"The mall, The Shops at Mission Viejo, is located off Interstate 5 freeway and Crown Valley Parkway and serves the very upscale residents of south Orange County."

What is "very upscale" supposed to mean? I go to that mall all the time and I wouldn't consider my family upscale at all. I'm removing it 72.194.98.193 17:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC) I think the reason is because it has some stores that serve more upscale clients: Nordstrom, Saks Fifth Avenue, etc. It also has a lot of not-so-upscale stores: i.e. FYE, Forever 21, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.106.49 (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Natives and Residence[edit]

RE: Notable Natives and Residence - Stan Zelinger, Carole Zelinger, Freddy Kruger and Kina Grannis.

It appears that Kina Grannis is the only person warranting a place in this Notables section.

Freddy Kruger is a pretty apt joke, but still a joke in one of the safest cities in the U.S.

The Zelingers might be more than non-fictional but less than worthy of mention in this section.

The heading "Notable Natives and Residence" needs to be corrected to "Notable Natives and Residents."

OneAmongBillions is a Mission Viejo resident OneAmongBillions (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bate[edit]

Would someone please take a look at the most recent edit by 192.225.179.162?. It's not quite blatant vandalism, so I can't undo it without violating 3RR. I was hoping some other person would see this on their watchlist. The wikilink to "Bate" is a disambiguation page, and this entry appears entirely non-notable. On the other hand, if you think it is a valid entry, please discuss here for my own education. Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edit and will leave a note at 192.225.179.162's talk page. Huon (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photo[edit]

Hello, I have reverted your edit to Mission Viejo. While that is a fine photo that adds a lot to the story, it is of a few homes, on the lake and a snow capped saddleback in the background. That is not really what Mission Viejo looks like, and the aerial photo provides a visual of MISSION VIEJO, the city. Simply removing a valuable aerial photo from the story in fact undermines its ability to be a reference page. Remember Wikipedia is not a brochure and encyclopedic value overrides visual appeal but when it is an issue, we use everything and let the end reader decided what is of value to his/her project.

Thanks! WPPilot 03:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)(talk)

70% of that photo is NOT Mission Viejo, it is Saddleback mountain, Saddleback mountain is not in Mission Viejo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPPilot (talk • contribs) 22:34, 15 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BRD. Your Bold edit was Reverted, now it's time for you to Discuss why you want to change the article on the article's talk page-- you do not revert again. While discussion is in progress, the article remains in the status quo ante. So, your turn, make your arguments -- not here, but on the article's talk page.BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have made my case, the photo as artistic as it is NOT Mission Viejo, I have already rather respectfully I mind you, MADE MY CASE, please take a moment to read above and reply, respond, retort or speak your mind. You are degrading the story, and simply removing costly and valuable aerial photos to place a artistic photo that you seem to think is more represented of what its like in Mission Viejo. Quite frankly, its NOT and unless you provide some rational regarding why a picture of a mountain that is not part of Mission Viejo covered with snow, something that rarely happens, is a more descriptive photo then a aerial photo of the ENITRE lake and north east section of the city. WPPilot 03:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted a edit by a user that feels a photo of a fairy tail land of snowcapped peaks, is Mission Viejo. Simply removing the aerial photo serves no function whatsoever. I was really clear in my posts and more then cordial, and frankly speaking the reply this user left is just mumbojumbo. I have reverted a second time and should this user decide to again revert that edit without offering something that explains how a picture of a mountain 50 miles away covered with snow is so valuable that a aerial shot, is simply trash and needs to be removed I will bring it to the admin dispute board, Rather odd really but that seems to be this users perspective, he seems to be creating a post card about a fantasy land. Aerial photos here are costly to obtain. This should not be the only city in Orange county NOT to have one on its Wiki page. WPPilot 04:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC) (talk)

OK, a few things:
  • DO NOT EVER move talk page discussion from one place to another on Wikipedia without informing the participants. This is for copyright reasons
  • I'm glad you're finally here where you should be, on the article's talk page. This is as it should be according to WP:BRD, but another part of BRD is that you do not continue to revert to get to your own version of the article. WP:BRD specifcally says that the article stays in the condition it was in before the dispute began, that is, the status quo ant. So please stop reverting while we (not just you and I, but any other editors who care to participate) discuss this.
Now, about the photos. I'll gladly concede that the original photo is probably not the best possible one to represent Mission Viejo. If there are others that are better, I'm completely open to talking about changing the image. But the aerial image is a very poor choice for the infobox for a number of reasons.
  • It doesn't "read" well at the size it would be displayed in in the infobox. It's an image which requires some largeness to be effectively presented, more than is available in the infobox.
  • The aerial image doesn't have a great deal of contrast to it (which is one of the factors that makes it necessary to display at a large size), so it's difficult to see exactly what is being displayed. Yes, the lake is there, but the image really tells me nothing at all about Mission Viejo as a place.
  • And that's because it's an aerial image. Unless you're looking at something specific or unique, or the image is crystal clear and large enough to see details, pretty much all aerial photographs look pretty much alike. This is especially the case when dealing with an area which was developed on the basis of sprawl. On the ground, it's hard enough to know when one has left Mission Viejo and enterered another municipality, but in the air, it's quite impossible. It's not like the image has boundaries on it, like map, so it becomes an image of undifferentiated sprawl.
So, please allow me to try something. I"m going to play around a little to see if I can find a way to put the aerial picture into the article in such a way that it contributes to the article in a way that it can't in the infobox, and let's see if we can agree on that. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have change the title of the section to be more specific. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me to move the conversation here. I fly, over this area, and it just so happens I grew up in Mission Viejo, so I know the area like the back of my hand. I worked, at my expense today in the plane as it was blowing hard to posture to get that photo, knowing and being able to see on the planes GPS that it is Mission Viejo. I have been doing aerial photos for about 20 years now, and I beg to differ, that instruments that I have in the cockpit allow me to know where I am, without question. I don't care about the info box, it was your un rational removal of a photo that was costly and hard to obtain that got my attention. WPPilot 04:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Please chill out, my friend, I am not denigrating your photo, your skills as a pilot/photographer or your knowledge of the area. You might, perhaps, afford me the same courtesy in regard to my knowledge of Wikipedia and my abilities with article layout.

Now, for the reasons I stated, I don't think your photo worked well in the infobox, but I've put it in the article a little farther down, where there is room for it to "breathe" and be displayed at a size that does it justice. Would you please take a look at it and see what you think? It's not the only place it can go, there are other places where there sufficient space for it, this was just the one that was highest up in article. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, while it is the only city in So OC that does not have a aerial photo in the info box, I really don't care, other then when someone simply puts my work, in the trash as you did many times. WPPilot 04:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Please be civil. Your photo is not really clearly anything at the size at which it would be displayed in the infobox. I stared at it for a long while and thought it looked quite like a location I grew up in in Kentucky. At the bigger size it can be displayed at within the article text, it allows a much clearer visual for what the image actually looks like. - Purplewowies (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was civil, simply expressed my frustrations when someone disregarded a picture I paid good money to get and worked hard for. The users desire to remove the photo from the story altogether was unjustified. Perhaps you might like to read my comment above and explain what I was uncivil about? As it was pointed out by others, the photo is just fine on the page now, something that was only done after the user removed the photo more then once. I grew up here, I was lucky enough to have this view, the one in the info box photo now, from my back yard. I can count on one hand the number of time I saw snow on Saddleback, and that is in no way what the city looks like. I flew a route that I had in my GPS to map the area, I flew at about 4500 feet, to the north west corner of the city and photographed the most picturesque location in the city. In the photo I was careful to include the features near the Lake, and the developments that surround it. You said you think it looks like Kentucky, did the other picture in any way resemble Mission Viejo? As mentioned I lived here, for over 10 years and saw snow perhaps 3 times. It looks more like Colorado then California to me.WPPilot 20:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC) (talk)

The description at File:Snow at Lake Mission Viejo 005.jpg refers to it as mountain unusually covered in snow, so that might go against the photo being a "visual representation of the topic" per WP:LEADIMAGE. In your discussion, just stick to the advice on selecting a lead image listed at WP:LEADIMAGE and how each of the images meets or does not meet that advise. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mission Viejo, 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:

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) 11:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mission Viejo, 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:

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) 12:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emily skinner[edit]

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


—2600:1700:80E1:190:A962:FEA4:E899:B6B6 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article. I've tweaked them a bit to be near the city hall and civic center; are they better now? Deor (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mission_Viejo,_California&oldid=1204027061"