Talk:Calico, California

One of two authentic ghost towns in California
What does this mean? Certainly there are other "real" ghost towns in the state. Is this an official designation by the state government? -- Scott ei&#960;  01:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. California has two officially designated "state ghost towns": Calico from the silver rush era, and Bodie from the gold rush era. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * no you dumbo 2600:6C51:767F:E776:8552:A94B:618E:24F1 (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the town where the ghost of Miriam Martinez, student of calico elementary, use to haunt the school after her passing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.171.34 (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Assess
there are many ghost towns in california all over the golden country, desert, even in san francisco bay area Drawbridge. Anlace 16:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So ... what's your point? Your comment sounds pointless. ICE77 (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Well meaning edits, but a bit of a mess
I just reverted the latest edits. There is some new information in there, but the grammatical and referencing errors were significant enough to warrant starting over again. Please watch punctuation, removal of previous references, and referencing style. We appreciate contributions, though, so please do them a bit more slowly and carefully.Wilson44691 (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Victorian"???
I just deleted the sentence claiming that the town buildings include some with "flamboyant Victorian architecture" because people expect to see such buildings in an old Western town. The claim had a reference link, but the reference is not visible, and it is clear on visiting the town that no such structures exist today - even if they possibly did when the reference was written. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So change it from "although many original buildings have been removed and replaced instead with flamboyant Victorian architecture" to "although many original buildings were removed and replaced instead with flamboyant Victorian architecture". That removes any concern that there is still some "Victorian" buildings, and keeps with the reference that at least at some point, there was. Also, "Victorian" included many different styles, including Carpenter Gothic and Stick-Eastlake.
 * The reference is indeed "visible". I own a copy of the book it came from. Perhaps you're unaware that references do not have to be online, and that books are probably one of the most secure sources because they are likely to last longer than a webpage that may be deleted at any time due to a website overhaul, spring clean or non-payment. "Clear on visiting the town" is a clear case of WP:Original research, whereas previously the information was cited to a published WP:Reliable source. OK, so it was published in 1990, but our policy is "Verifiability, and not truth" so that means all we have to do is tweak the tense of the sentence, not remove it in exchange of laying claim to what your eyes see. "No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it unless it is verifiable." On what authority do you have to state that what you think is fact?
 * Also, you changed one of the references when you deleted "53" from so that was no longer verifiable either. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, good, you have the book; what exactly does it say on page 53? Let's start with that. I really have a problem with leaving it in, in any form, because it is simply not true. Yeah, I know, "verifiability not truth". But how can I verify the absence of something? It will be almost impossible to find a "reliable source" saying that there are NOT such buildings, because it's hard to prove a negative, and who would think to publish a statement that there are no such buildings there? Can we at least take out the word "flamboyant"? Nothing in the town is "flamboyant" in style in any way, even if some of the buildings that I described as "rustic" might qualify as (say) Carpenter Gothic. (Possibly the school which is the closest thing to a "flamboyant" building in the town.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify what I am talking about: this or this might be considered "flamboyant" Victorian. Not this or this, which are the fanciest buildings in Calico. --MelanieN (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * flam·boy·ant/flamˈboiənt/, Adjective: (of a person or their behavior) Tending to attract attention because of their exuberance, confidence, and stylishness. (esp. of clothing) Noticeable because brightly colored, highly patterned, or unusual in style. flam·boy·ant (flm-boint) adj. 1. Highly elaborate; ornate. 2. Richly colored; resplendent. 3. Architecture Of, relating to, or having wavy lines and flamelike forms characteristic of 15th- and 16th-century French Gothic architecture. 4. Given to ostentatious or audacious display. See Synonyms at showy. --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, so here is the relevant paragraph on p. 53.: "Over-restoration is Calico's shortcoming. The elaborate gingerbread and false-front buildings that now line Wall Street are closer to what tourists expect of the Old West than anything that was ever really there. But among the showy structures are a few unprepossessing ones that are all but overlooked; ironically, they are the originals." So I probably switched the word "showy" or "elaborate" for "flamboyant" to avoid any accusations of plagiarism (because there's a lot of that going around Wikipedia lately -- though none directed at me). And while the quote doesn't say "Victorian", it does say "Gingerbread", which is a style of Victorian architecture. We don't have an article on it, but the term gets 40,000 G-hits. If you want to remove flamboyant and use Gingerbread, I'd be ok to that. Matthewedwards : Chat  03:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, done. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)