User:Adflatuss/sandbox4

• Theodore Roosevelt National Park, move content to appropriate sections sections
• Endangered Species Act, move content to appropriate sections sections
• Conservation in the United States, integrate Native American and their relationship with bison
• Isaac Hale Beach Park: add to eruption article, use news links in citation to expand description of former use and improvement plans including impact on local fishing industry
• California Senate Bill 35 (2017) update examples and new legislation if it passes
• Ventura Botanical Gardens^[1][2]
• Oxnard Chinatown^[3]
• Chamberlain rock
• Killing of bears and wolves in Alaska
• Quivira National Wildlife Refuge - water rights
• Wolverine
• Yurok Regalia Meaning

• California Coastal Commission,

It is clear that this section is basically an aggregation of actions/events taken by the CCC. I would like to suggest that rather than simply trimming this section, we look at each paragraph (and sources) to see whether it can be used as a summary/example of the types of policy goals the CCC undertakes. I like that we have a section "Affordable overnight coastal accommodations" (don't remember whether Fettlemap or I did that) that explains what some policy goal is and how the CCC implements/enforces that goal.

Also, I think that descriptions of events which led to appellate court decisions would generally be considered notable, as well as cases that led to decisions which define the scope of the CCC's power (for example, the statement that starts with "In 2005, the commission found Dennis Schneider's proposed...." is good as it stands, in my opinion.

As one specific case, I think that the statement (towards the end) "In 2015, the commission approved a construction project for SeaWorld San Diego ....." should be made larger, since this got nationwide press coverage, and sources talk about how the movie Blackfish (film) had influence on public opinion and thereby influenced CCC discussions and should be mentioned, but isn't.

But the sentence that follows: "In 2020, a commission investigation found the city of Long Beach guilty..." seems of little value....I propose that sources like that be used to support an overall paragraph like the one I tried to re-instate here (but was not written by me; we could write it more neutrally) which gives an overview of many of their lesser activities but still mentions them.

What do others think?---Avatar317^(talk) 05:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

If there are instances that you think are important to include, then perhaps we can include those. But maybe just a few, and trimmed of the excess detail. I still have a hard time seeing the reader benefit of listing every action they took and then dueling over over what spin to put on it. I don't have access to the LA Times, so I can't read many of the sources. But right now it seems like this article is being written mostly by California-based editors with axes to grind. And that's why it's good when articles are written and edited by neutral parties. I'm overwhelmed trying to sift through each one of these paragraphs to determine what should be included. We should blank the section and start over, one by one. Otherwise, it's not fair to other editors. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

There are no current content disputes that I am aware of. Let's improve the article and not worry about who is doing what. You do not "have to do ALL the work of going through each entry and each source." That is not how editing works. I think that is in conformance to Wikipedia policies. Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a dispute. I believe the content in the section needs to be removed, so we can discuss what should be there, and avoid the current bloat. That would be "improving" the article. But what you want seems to be to just keep the bloat, and then scrutinize it one-by-one, while the bloated content remains. That's the dispute. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the temporary harm of the bloated content. Remember, there is no urgency to Wikipedia, it is always a work in progress. Some essays: WP:WIP and WP:TIND. It sat for a year like this. What is the urgency to immediately fix this?

I'm not saying that the content can't be trimmed, nor that we should reward effort with content inclusion, but many of these sources are hard to find, and I believe that other visiting editors (and potential new editors) will find it easier (and are more likely) to improve the article when they have access to many sources WITHIN the article, and see statements from those sources. Many editors will not necessarily want to dig very hard for sources. In my opinion, we should care more about a better article long-term, than a short-term bad appearing article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skipper, thanks for clarifying that there is no dispute over content but only the editing method. You prefer blanking the section which is typically used only for content that can't be salvaged. The case has been made that this content has been and will be improved and there is no Wikipedia editing guideline for blanking the section. Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)