Talk:Rancho San Antonio County Park

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

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Discussion of a potential split should continue, and no prejudice against opening another discussion if the evidence changes. Cúchullain t/c 14:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Rancho San Antonio County Park → Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve – The county park is a small thing, basically just the bit east of the water tank. The article currently states that the park is 3800 acres, but this is wrong; it's really only 165 acres (see this link). Most of the land and most of the hiking is in the open-space preserve but not in the park. Many of the specific features mentioned in the article are actually in the open-space preserve but not in the park (including both the pictures, I think, though I'm not quite sure of that). Alternatively, the articles could be de-merged (they were apparently merged about four years ago), as the park and the OSP do seem to be distinct entities, but that strikes me as going overboard given that there's no obvious transition when you leave the park and go into the OSP Trovatore (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The county park is the WP:COMMONNAME. The county provides the parking, the restrooms, and many facilities. Yes, the trail maps are OSP, but I think the county park extends through Deer Hollow Farm. The grasslands picture appears to be from near the main parking lot. The caption on the bay laurel states it is in the park. Glrx (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No, the park doesn't get anywhere near Deer Hollow Farm. See the map here (PDF). You may be right about the pictures, though. But I disagree that the park is the common name. --Trovatore (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technical update I thought I had given a direct link to the map, but apparently I messed up. Here it is. (I fixed it in the above as well.) --Trovatore (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for fixing the link.
      Looking at google hits, the names come out about even. There was a big dust up several years ago when the state parks (e.g., Castle Rock) started charging for parking. The county started considering whether it should charge for parking, and, thankfully, it did not.
      I still favor the article using county park. Glrx (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, if you're convinced on that, then I think maybe the article should be split. The OSP really deserves an article. --Trovatore (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 8 July 2017[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Outside2017 (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Rancho San Antonio County Park → Rancho San Antonio County Park and Open Space Preserve – This article covers both Rancho San Antonio County Park, owned by the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department, and Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, owned by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Titling the article Rancho San Antonio County Park with the current content is misleading; some of the content is applicable to both, and some is applicable to just the OSP. When visiting the parks, they seem to be one park, and all available maps are from Midpen ROSD and show both parks, no one seems to have a map of just the County Park. Outside2017 (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as second choice. My first choice would be to move it to the OSP title. --Trovatore (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move to County Park and Open Space Preserve, way too long when either of the names can identify this area (not to say this move is entire unsupported by sources [1], [2], [3]. Weak Support Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve (for WP:CONSISTENCY), but it really does seem like every some refers to the larger area as the County Park. menaechmi (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the combination of the two is frequently referred to simply as the "Rancho San Antonio County Park". For example, [4]. menaechmi (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well, it's certainly not true that every source does that. I'm wondering if there might be a little jostling here between Midpen (the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District) and the county parks dept. They have some sort of shared responsibility for Rancho, but Midpen is the one that handles these preserves more generally, and to me seems like the more important authority to consider. --Trovatore (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, I never meant to even imply that every source did that (even though I said that exact word). I think you might be right on the jostling front, which is never helpful for these situations. My instincts tell me that OSP is the more encyclopedic route (given that it is a nature preserve and has , but there really isn't clear cut support in either direction, but all of the other articles on the Midpen OSPs are titled "x Open Space Preserve". menaechmi (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The big sign at the main entrance says "Rancho San Antonio County Park and Open Space Preserve" (with "County Park and Open Space Preserve" in slightly smaller font than "Rancho San Antonio"). The article contains information that is applicable only to the Open Space Preserve, so calling the article County Park is conveying incorrect information. I suspect most people in conversation just call it "Rancho San Antonio" and don't bother with either "County Park" or "Open Space Preserve". The article should be either split or renamed: if not my original suggestion, then how about either "Rancho San Antonio" or "Rancho San Antonio Park"? - the latter being the phrase used on the directional sign on Cristo Rey Drive that points to the main entrance. Outside2017 (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Rancho San Antonio" by itself might be a reasonable compromise. My first choice would still be "Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve", but I could live with the shorter title. --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should have checked first, wiki already has a "Rancho San Antonio" disambiguation page, so I guessing that isn't an option. Outside2017 (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_records, "Rancho San Antonio County Park and Open Space Preserve" doesn't seem very long at all. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(technical_restrictions)#Title_length says title length limit is <256 characters. Outside2017 (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As stated above, the park and OSP are locally known as "Rancho San Antonio". Even if there is a sign "Rancho San Antonio County Park and Open Space Preserve", that is not the WP:COMMONNAME. As the introduction explains, there are two separate entities, and the second entity, Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, already redirects here. Those are the two viable names. Most users will enter the county park first; some may exit the park and enter the OSP, but not all. The radio control enthusiasts, for example, probably stay inside the county park. Consequently, I'd leave the article at the county park because the park gets more traffic. Glrx (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think that's at best a reason to split. I'm not really in favor of a split; you don't really notice when you pass between the OSP and the park. But the OSP is the larger and more important entity. My order of preference would be: (1) Move to the OSP title; (2) Outside2017's proposal, "Park and OSP", which is we didn't invent since it's on the sign; (3) (reluctantly) split; or (4) absolute last choice, way way down the list, the status quo. --Trovatore (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If the Park and OSP are commonly known as "Rancho San Antonio", then the common name isn't "Rancho San Antonio County Park". The start of the second paragraph "The adjacent Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve" indicates the rest of the article is solely about the county park, thus the article is re-enforcing misconceptions instead of educating. Almost all users leave the County Park and enter the OSP - radio control enthusiasts and tennis players likely the only ones who don't leave the park; and a fair number of users enter the OSP directly at other entry points ( Rhus Ridge parking lot among others), never setting foot in the County Park. And yes, there's a big sign at the turn off from Cristo Rey drive announcing "Rancho San Antonio County Park and Open Space Preserve". Further, the maps provided by Midpen at some of the entrances to the OSP (one of which is just past the tennis courts) also title it "Rancho San Antonio County Park and Open Space Preserve". If this can't be renamed, then I'll add turn the OSP into a real article instead of just a link. Outside2017 (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result Given move request has two "Oppose" votes, one "Support as second choice" vote, and no "full support" votes (besides mine), will not move. Outside2017 (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

http://www.openspace.org/CGI-BIN/press_releases/2004-04-27%20-%20Bay%20Tree%20Celebration.pdf link is bad, does anyone have a replacement? http://www.losaltosonline.com/index.php?option=com_content link is bad, does anyone have a replacement? References section and External Links section have 3 links all going to http://www.fodhf.org/ can someone who knows more about Deer Hollow Farm clean these up to just one link?

GLRX: why did you remove "Part of the Hammond-Synder Loop trail is temporarily closed due to a Santa Clara Valley Water District project" but leave the link that tells how long parts of the Hammond-Synder Loop trail will be closed? confusing as is... Can you please either remove the reference link, or preferably since parts of the trail are closed and will be for a while, put the text back? thanks. Outside2017 (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stream names[edit]

Some confusion on stream names. Older maps and references I can find via google search call them West Branch Permanente Creek and Ohlone Creek. Some sources refer to them as West Fork Permanente Creek and Wildcat Canyon Creek. All of the sources using Wildcat Canyon Creek seem to refer back to http://www.southbayquarrylibrary.org/Catalog/Lehigh%202009-07-31%20-%20Permanente%20Creek%20Long-Term%20Restoration%20Plan.pdf which references Ohlone as the former name. Outside2017 (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See https://geonames.usgs.gov/domestic/
Glrx (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cupertino Creeks mentions Permanente Creek, the West Fork, Ohlone Creek, and Wildcat Canyon.
https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=138:3:0::NO:3:P3_FID,P3_TITLE:224788,Hale%20Creek
Glrx (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The San_Tomas Aquino Creek page references a Wildcat Creek as a tributary, but that's a long way from our creek. And that page incorrectly links to a Wildcat Creek near Berkeley.
I saw the Cupertino Creeks page, gave me confidence that Ohlone Creek was the correct name, until I looked later, and saw at the top of the page "Information taken from Wikipedia" which I think means the Cupertino Creeks page is using the Rancho San Antonio page as source material. The search continues...
Outside2017 (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I missed the "taken from Wikipedia". Sorry. Glrx (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I missed it too the first few times I looked at that page, didn't see it until a day or two later, easy to miss. Outside2017 (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tantalizing but unreadable:
Glrx (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
that page has a link to the Library of Congress' copy of the map, which you can zoom in on...but it doesn't show any more than Permanente Creek. Outside2017 (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Map of Santa Clara County Ranchos: A Delineation of Spanish-Mexican Government Land Grants or Ranchos and Pueblo Sites in Early Santa Clara Valley, Clyde Arbuckle and Ralph Rambo, copyright Ralph Rambo (19?? year unreadable; 1968?). Shows San Antonio Creek as northwest boundary, Permanente Creek running through Rancho San Antonio, and Stevens Creek being the eastern boundary. Permanente forks were not called out. Glrx (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
High resolution 1876:
"Veguas(?) or San Antonio Creek", "Permanent Creek". Lower portion of Stevens Creek called "Cupertino Creek".
Glrx (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maps of district 7 of the Santa Clara Valley Water District show our little creek as Ohlone Creek, see http://www.valleywater.org/About/Board_of_Directors/District_Boundaries.aspx
I think we stay with Ohlone Creek.
Outside2017 (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rancho_San_Antonio_County_Park&oldid=1205004398"