Talk:Santa Cruz, California

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

Lists[edit]

What is it about the lists in this article that will contribute towards the likelihood of it becoming a good article? I have a few reasons why I think they should be reduced in order to reach that goal. Long lists without meaningful prose are limited in value. They're also prone to excessive and explosive growth because newer editors see an easy way to add an item. Another thing is that is neglected with these types of lists are references. Verifiabilty is key here and lists aren't exempt. So, what are your thoughts?

My revert is based on this: Lets work on one of the lists in the article at a time. There is more than one list, but doing everything at once may be too much. Items in this list should be added back if there is text and references included. E_dog95' Hi ' 03:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you. I think that the majority of the lists in the "Cultural attractions" section makes the article look...well...bad, especially with the amount of red links there are. I think we could work on it slowly, but in the meantime, let's move those lists to this section of the Talk page so that we don't lose any of the items. Ms. Sarita (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Lets do that. E_dog95' Hi ' 03:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list - concerning what we already have, what is notable and what is not?[edit]

Lets start here. Notable implies that there are reliable third party sources. E_dog95' Hi ' 04:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of schools[edit]

I also find the lists of schools to be bothersome. Is this information in any way useful? —  X  S  G  19:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. The article will likely never attain good article status with this list embedded like that. E_dog95' Hi ' 19:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this article destined to become a Good Article? I don't think so and I don't know that it should be. Still, I don't think the list of schools is useful. I'll give it a few days before I see if there's a better way to present the information. If not, I'll just remove it. —  X  S  G  22:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article could totally be presented well enough to be recognized as a good article. Over time there isn't a reason that it shouldn't get there. E_dog95' Hi ' 04:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the list of schools to be useful for local residents, though I wonder about the inclusion of Tierra Pacifica, which is not located in the city. Kevin k (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles associated with Santa Cruz[edit]

Hi, folks. I took a look at a lot of the articles that are linked to from this article and found that many don't actually seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I've put the ones I've noticed up for deletion. This doesn't necessarily mean they should be deleted, however. If you can find references that will help an article meet WP:NOTABLE, it's not too late to keep the articles around. —  X  S  G  22:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary vs. Secondary sources[edit]

Recently, someone added an uncited entry (O'Neill) to the list of notable businesses headquartered in Santa Cruz. I was under the impression that this company had recently moved to Irvine so I looked at their website to confirm. In fact, the company _is_ still headquartered in Santa Cruz but has relocated a portion of its business to Irvine, so I added the company's own website as a reference.

Subsequently, an editor found a secondary source, dating from 2003. In this case, I believe the primary source is superlative to the secondary source. Prior to reverting the change, however, I wanted to get other editors' opinions. —  X  S  G  19:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

I've just assessed the article for WP CAL, here are some notes on why it didn't meet B-class. Sorry but this is a bit rushed since I'm not sure how active the development is on this article. Just post a notice on the project or my talk page if wants further explanation or a re-assessment.

  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.
    No, Mission and Pueblo period and Economy are unreferenced, several others have very few. Also, both (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-context=adp&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR3&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-tree_id=3307&-redoLog=false&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=16000US0669112&-format=&-_lang=en and http://www.santacruzfarmersmarket.org/ are bare links)
  1. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
    No, Education and Attractions need flushing out from bullet points to written overviews of the topics.
  1. The article has a defined structure.
    No, the lead section is a bit short and doesn't quite cover all of the material. A few of the sections are uneven, take a look at San Francisco, California for a recently reviewed Featured Article for structure ideas.
  1. The article is reasonably well-written.

Nothing jumped out at me, but I didn't really checked since several of the other changes are going to mean some major rewrites anyway.

  1. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.
    No, History and Education could use some form of illustration, and the picture of Umbrella Man is too dark.
  1. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way.
    Ok, nothing overly technical or overly local from what I noticed.

Otherwise it's a good article, and obviously a lot of work has gone into getting it where it is, but right now it doesn't meet the B class criteria. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economy[edit]

I'd like to request someone to add some references to the Economy section; I've been fixing up the assessment criticisms, however I've run out of steam. —  X  S  G  07:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could this section include information on the housing and rental market in Santa Cruz? Residents know Santa Cruz is a very expensive place to live. Perhaps it could be relevant to add information about the housing market, it's intersection with inequality, and other recent developments like the AirBnB problem in Santa Cruz. The AirBnB issue had been covered in the sentinel a lot, seems like an interesting housing market attribute to add? Or should Housing Market be a new section and not under Economy? Kelseyferrell (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone recently added: "For the community in Mariposa county formerly with this name, see Indian Gulch, California" along with the link back to the Santa Cruz disambiguation page. I'm slightly against this change; I'm not convinced that Indian Gulch warrants special treatment regarding disambiguations. The one reason I can see for it is that the disambiguation page disambiguates "Santa Cruz", while the link to Indian Gulch disambiguates "Santa Cruz, California". The reason against it is that I sincerely doubt anyone is ever going to go looking for a page on Indian Gulch by going to the "Santa Cruz, California" page. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? —  X  S  G  03:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If someone wants to find the place called Santa Cruz in California, the likely search term would be "Santa Cruz, California" - well, unfortunately that name is not unique to this Santa Cruz, as Indian Gulch had that name for some time. So while someone wouldn't intentionally seek out Indian Gulch by typing in Santa Cruz, California, one shouldn't be hindered from finding the other Santa Cruz (now Indian Gulch) from typing in the normal search. Hatdabs are a way of quickly pointing people to something they may be looking for when they end up on the wrong page. Here, that can happen. We regularly have hatdabs to indicate links to places with former names, that may be searched upon. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for stating this. I have little new to add, and would like to clarify my previous statement. I completely concur that hatdabs should be used to indicate links to places with former names that may be searched upon. My issue is that I sincerely doubt that anyone is ever going to search for a town that is now a ghost town (seriously, it's not even a CDP) that was once known as "Santa Cruz" and has been known as Indian Gulch since 1855, using the phrase "Santa Cruz, California". hatdabs have their purpose, but I think using one here is an overreach, especially considering that there was already a hatdab to Santa Cruz which contains the link to Indian Gulch (as it should). I wonder whether this hatdab was added to solve an existing problem, or to prevent one from occurring, in which case I think it may be just tilting at windmills... —  X  S  G  05:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy (Surf City USA) contradiction[edit]

I just tagged the Santa Cruz, California#Controversy section as contradictory. The line about the registrations not being on file on the principal or secondary registers is unsourced. On the other hand the information about it being on the principal/secondary registers is sourced to the Huntington Beach Visitor's bureau so they're going to be biased towards their claim. I couldn't find any source showing what the outcome of the court case was, which was over the trademark is valid. If someone can locate an updated source on this to clear this up would be nice, but I'm not sure how important this is to the article as a whole in the long run. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attractions Section[edit]

The entire first paragraph of the "Attractions Section" is horridly written. The paragraph lacks a central thought or focus. An encyclopedic article about a city shouldn't need to mention that Brazilians and Portuguese speakers gather weekly to dance. An encyclopedic article about a city shouldn't need to mention that a transvestite walks down the street regularly. --72.47.85.92 (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly six months later, and I'm not hearing any objections. Transvestites and dancers are not attractions. A line of clothes is not an attraction. Based on this, and on lack of objection, I'm deleting the first paragraph of this section. --74.195.63.121 (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Please do consider using edit summaries. Rivertorch (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent History Section[edit]

With only one event this section should be removed and the info incorporated elsewhere if needed (and I'd suggest it is not needed at all for this article).--Fizbin (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown[edit]

The majority of this section is solely about Cooper House, which no longer exists. That information is also unsourced, extremely specific (naming a band that played there) and has a whiff of nostalgic boosterism. Most of this should be cut, but what's left will be just a stub of a section. Ideas? Dpmath (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social Activism[edit]

This section is myopic in that it covers in great detail just a very few examples---reading as thought someone wanted to document their pet causes, rather than give an overview of important movements and achievements in social activism in Santa Cruz.

The two paragraphs on the May 2010 vandalism incident seem overblown and out of place. Dpmath (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sister cities: Santa Cruz de Tenerife[edit]

The city of Santa Cruz in California, is a Sister cities with Santa Cruz de Tenerife in Spain since 1974.[1] Santa Cruz de Tenerife, was a former sister city.[2]

  1. ^ Portal turismo y ocio Ayto. S.C.Tenerife
  2. ^ Sister cities of Santa Cruz

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.152.174.64 (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Cruz de Tenerife is not currently listed on the City website, nor the Chamber of Commerce. The fact that it was formerly a sister city may or may not be relevant to include in a summary encyclopedia article: possibly many or maybe just this one city have been removed from the list for reasons unknown. I feel simply stating the current list of cities is sufficient: devoting too much space to its history may be giving undue weight to a relatively minor aspect of the City, and approaching trivial territory.--Animalparty-- (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Santa Cruz, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Santa Cruz, 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, 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) 22:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rancho Arroyo de la Laguna[edit]

I added a sentence about Rancho Arroyo de la Laguna however it seems like it needs a few more sentences added? Anyone know much about this? Jooojay (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why this should be here in this article, is that is relevant to the history of the current city of Santa Cruz. Jooojay (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The rancho is nowhere near the city limits. How is that relevant? Jooojay is a vandal, and editors should revert all Jooojay edits. WCCasey (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you being rude WCCasey? The citation I added said Rancho Arroyo de la Laguna was within the bounds of the City of Santa Cruz, if you have some other evidence of it not being there - PLEASE SHARE THAT instead of harassing/bullying me on this talk page. If I am wrong, I can accept that and discuss like an adult - but calling people names and showing no proof of your allegations of your so-called "facts" is inappropriate and doesn't belong on this website. Jooojay (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jooojay's last edit, which I reverted, was vandalism - Elihu Anthony was not a "Jr." Rancho Arroyo de la Laguna was miles up the coast from Santa Cruz, near Davenport, California - read the article. 'California Missions Resource Center' website is full of errors; not a reliable source. Vandalism and inserting false information are rude. WCCasey (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WCCasey I am not familiar with 'California Missions Resource Center' website, that was not my citation. I am sorry if I made a mistake, please stop assuming I was intentionally vandalizing and please do provide your proof. I am a long time editor of Wikipedia. This is a clear example of bullying and something that can get you banned, I would be more careful with your words here. Jooojay (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: "...vandalism - Elihu Anthony was not a Jr.". Where did you get that? I apologize for failing to separate my comment about the 'California Missions Resource Center' website from comments about your edits. I don't mean to discourage a new editor, but please understand that a lot of previous editors, who know a lot more about Santa Cruz history than you do, have spent a lot of time researching and refining what's in this article. Please show some respect for that, and do your homework (at least read the Rancho Arroyo de la Laguna article) before you start adding things. And take your own advice - discuss proposed changes here on the Talk page first. Article content is a result of consensus. WCCasey (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WCCasey, Is there are reason why the article for Santa Cruz, California has literally no information or alternative, no links to the Rancho history? Other, similar sized cities in California have it included in their articles. And perhaps you can add it here, since it appears you do not want others to edit collaboratively. Jooojay (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add info on former rancho grants that are now at least partly included in the city of Santa Cruz, I have no objection. A map of rancho boundaries would be welcome in the 'Santa Cruz County' article. but someone will have to draw one from available maps. My only concern is that editors add accurate information (with reliable sourcing where needed), about ranchos that are actually in Santa Cruz. You could start with the sortable list in List of Ranchos of California. I added a link to the general article Ranchos of California as part of a cleanup of that section. The reason there's not much reference to ranchos in this article is probably because not much of Santa Cruz city was ever part of a rancho. The County article would be a better place to talk about ranchos. WCCasey (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Santa Cruz, 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) 18:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Santa Cruz, 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) 07:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Santa Cruz, 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) 04:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Homelessness[edit]

I think it would be a good idea to add a section on homelessness. San Francisco and Berkeley both have sections on homelessness, so why not Santa Cruz when we have the highest levels of homelessness in the nation? I tried to add one before only to see it get deleted. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?Kelseyferrell (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Kelseyferrell[reply]

The homeless seems relevant to the demographics section of the city of Santa Cruz. Jooojay (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

Two sections tagged as biased: "Social activism", and "Crime and public safety". WCCasey (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with those sections. I've been working on expanding the article on UCSC and one thing that keeps coming up in sources on UCSC history is how the "Murderville" issue had a major impact on enrollment at Santa Cruz in the 1970s, together with the general public perception of the campus as totally dysfunctional (before Chancellor Sinsheimer's reforms). --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality doesn't mean we have to include as many positive things as negative things. Neutrality is achieved when all published sides of a disputed fact are included. John from Idegon (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Only one published side of disputed facts is presented in these two sections. WCCasey (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Surf City" nickname controversy[edit]

@Expandinglight5:: I noticed you added a neutrality template to the '"Surf City" nickname controversy' section. I removed the last two sentences because they just quoted an opinion piece saying that Santa Cruz is better than Huntington Beach. Now the section is purely factual. Does that address your concern about the section's neutrality? Rublov (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks for addressing. No issues with removing the tag. Expandinglight5 (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rublov (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Racial demographics section[edit]

Racial demographics citation isn’t a link to the info cited it’s just a link to a gov website which may or may not contain info cited. Either way info cited is incorrect/outdated; more up to date info is here - http://www.santacruzchamber.org/demographics.html HardeeHar (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction needs more references[edit]

Paragraph 3 says that Santa Cruz is socially liberal. This is true, but it could be supported with evidence such as how the population tended to vote in the past presidential elections. Also, the paragraph says that UCSC is a premier research institution. That is true and deserves a reference or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlorFeliz (talk • contribs) 21:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhoods section - does not need "references" per se[edit]

The inclusion of a greater section on the neighborhoods of Santa Cruz does not need references, per se. Much of the content is based on general history and knowledge of Santa Cruz. I do not need a reference to state that Seabright Ave is part of Seabright or that it's near Midtown. The purpose of doing this is for the Santa Cruz page to parallel the page for San Jose which has a map of the districts and neighborhoods. The reason for this is because the terms "westside" and "eastside" are problematic and should be discussed. That is because Soquel and Aptos are not to the "east," but to the south. The term is loaded with the biases of people who popularized the term and the term has no known origin.

____ Here is the section I included, which can be refined but for the most part, it outlines the bulk of which areas are different neighborhoods culturally or historically.

The "westside" of Santa Cruz is historically defined to be anything west of the San Lorenzo River and the "eastside" east of the San Lorenzo River all the way to neighboring towns of Soquel and Capitola. And the beginning of Aptos is seen as the end boundary for the "eastside." Geographically, however, Soquel, Capitola, and Aptos are in the mid-county area and headed southbound, not to the "east."

Historically, Santa Cruz was not densely populated or developed, which can explain why the San Lorenzo River was viewed as a correct geographical marker for delineation between "westside," and "eastside," but currently, the terms are generally outdated, clumsy, and probably have a racial connotation between the more affluent parts of Santa Cruz (ex, the Victorian houses or country mansions), what were the rural parts of Santa Cruz (i.e. the ranches, vineyards, cottages, or farms), and what were/are the more urban areas (ex, condominiums, trailer parks, trailers, shacks, apartments, or small houses in areas susceptible to flooding) of Santa Cruz.

At one time, Santa Cruz was primarily a small port town for timber, as well as a vacation destination for people primarily from San Francisco or Marin county (i.e. places for the more affluent parts of the Bay Area in the first quarter of the twentieth century, such as the Boardwalk, Municipal Wharf, Cowell's, the speakeasies, Beach Hill, the redwoods, or the Brookdale Lodge in the Santa Cruz Mountains, which is "west" of the San Lorenzo River but not within city limits). The terms "westside" and "eastside" evolved both from surf culture (which side of the San Lorenzo River you were on) and the connection between the cliffs to see from boats along a maritime route (ex, commercial fishing, tourism). You would have been headed south along the coast, past Natural Bridges and the West Cliff, the East Cliff and the Harbor, the Opal Cliffs and Capitola, and then New Brighton Beach, Seacliff, Aptos Beach, and La Selva Beach--which fittingly means "The Jungle"--and presumably en route to Moss Landing or Monterey. Additionally, if you lived in the Mountains "west" of the San Lorenzo River, you could take a train down to Beach Hill, Cowell's, the Wharf, and the Boardwalk--the tracks of which run along what is now Chestnut Street that roughly corresponds with the line between the Lower Westside and Downtown Santa Cruz. The San Lorenzo River can also be the southern most point of what is considered the San Francisco Bay Area, because parts of the Santa Cruz Mountains are part of the San Francisco Bay area, geographically speaking, but not necessarily, culturally or politically. There were fewer tourist attractions "east" of the San Lorenzo River by comparison and the area was primarily a bedroom community for retirees and military.

Since the 1960s and the opening of the University of California at Santa Cruz, the city has been a college town. Additionally, since the early 2000s, affluence in Santa Cruz has increased as a bedroom community for employees of Silicon Valley.

The terms "westside" and "eastside," however, do not accurately reflect the neighborhoods, regions, communities, or villages within the city of Santa Cruz or the adjacent census designated places around the city. Generally speaking, the neighborhoods within the city limits include, but are not limited to: the West Cliff (primarily along West Cliff Drive, Lighthouse, or Steamer Lane), the Upper Westside (ex, Delaware Ave, Mission Street, Bay, Laurel, UCSC), the Lower Westside (primarily the immediate west of Downtown; Chestnut, Laurel, Walnut, and Bay go to the flats), Cowell's (roughly the Beachfront nearest the Wharf), Beach Flats (roughly around the Beachfront nearest to the San Lorenzo River), Beach Hill (the elevated part of Beachfront between the Flats and Cowell's), East Cliff (primarily along East Cliff Drive and south of Murray Street), Riverside (primarily the immediate east of Downtown; Water Street, North and South River Street, South Branciforte, South Ocean Street, Laurel-Broadway, Front Street), Graham Hill, Happy Valley (North Branciforte, Glen Canyon Rd, Granite Creek Rd), Prospect Heights (ex, DeLaveaga Park Dr, Prospect Heights), Morrissey, Seabright (nearest the Harbor; Seabright Ave, Frederick Street), Midtown (ex, Emeline, Hidden Creek, Water Street, North Ocean Street, Soquel Ave), the Arana Gulch area (ex, 7th Avenue), the Northside (primarily the immediate north of Downtown; Harvey West Park, Encinal Street), the Southside (roughly, the immediate south of Downtown; past Laurel until you reach Beach Hill or Cowell's, Front Street, Third Street). You can refer to the Southside, Northside, Riverside, East Cliff, and Lower Westside as being in the Downtown area.

The term "the east side," generally refers to the census designated and unincorporated parts most adjacent to the city limits of Santa Cruz, which are Twin Lakes, Live Oak, South Rodeo Gulch, Pleasure Point, Opal Cliffs, Capitola Village, and the places nearest to 41st Avenue (not including the North Hills of Soquel or Soquel Village). 2601:647:C000:E200:A04F:61DD:1CFD:3F86 (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is a gigantic violation of WP:No original research and is not going in the article at all, ever. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're the same guy that says Paul McCartney might really be dead[1] then Wikipedia is not for you. Binksternet (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Social Activism Section?[edit]

There is some discussion about the social activism section of the last several years, but now I can't find it. Did someone just delete it without any discussion? Can we reinstate it and bring it up to wiki standards? Rico (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Santa_Cruz,_California&oldid=1212246249"