Talk:Jurupa Valley, California

combining towns
since voters have voted for cityhood, i think that they should be merged since all these pages have very little information75.24.247.231 (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Has the new town actually been incorporated? Is the new town a separate Census designated area?  (If so, what does the 2010 data show?)  I would support merger, but the article for the new town needs both a skeleton and some meat. --S. Rich (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)06:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * yes and no. it is separate because each of these areas(mira loma, Rubidoux,Sunnyslope, Pedley, glen avon) has its own census designated area. the 2010 data for cities and CDP's has not come out yet(will soon though). the only data that has come out of the US census is national, state and county data. i'm wondering if they are going to recalculate it since these areas were done separately. im assuming that all they are going to do is add all these areas together since each of the CDP's merged together to form a city.75.24.247.231 (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * well there is a jurupa census county division. oh yes they are apart for each of these areas. but calculating each of these areas together puts the population closer to 92,00075.24.247.231 (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd also agree with the combining. Census data will probably remain separated, simply because the area was still separate unincorporated CDP's at the time of the 2010 census. Information on this page, yes, would require some manipulation to include all included 2010 CDP counts. I did update a map to represent the incorporated boundaries.CraziFuzzy (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where the 88,000 population number came from, but looking at previous censuses and estimates it seems reasonable. I've found the following:

Do not merge: Each community has a unique history (such as Rubidoux) and can be suitable neighborhood articles (e.g. Carol City, Florida and Norland, Florida, which incorporated into Miami Gardens in 2003). --Moreau36--Discuss 15:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Do not merge: I agree each has a separate history, and the new city name is not well known yet. If at some time in the future the history of the separate areas becomes blurred, as the new city becomes more estalished, then merging could be considered then. If it is decided that the articles should be merged, the new article should keep a separate section for each area. MissionInn.Jim (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the city of San Bernardino has separate articles for each of it's neighborhoods. (See Category:Neighborhoods in San Bernardino, California.) MissionInn.Jim (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I updates the above table with finalized 2010 census data for the associated CDP's. This new number (94,235) should be considered a valid population figure for Jurupa Valley.CraziFuzzy (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there is no consensus to merge. If there are no objections, I would like to remove the Merge templates.Bte99 (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur. Pages for CDPs and neighborhoods within incorporated boundaries still exist and are well-established in WP. Yet I would also suggest that some of the significant figures and entries from the associated pages be copied into the JuVal entry in order to flesh it out some. OffColfax (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, do not merge. There are a lot of articles on former CDPs (see Category:Former census-designated places in California). Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Coordinates
Given the history of the new city, there isn't a natural geographic center to use for the coordinates. The town hall is in Pedley, near the southern edge of the new city, so that didn't really make sense. In the end I chose the intersection of Mission Blvd and Valley Way. While this isn't the geographic center, it works somewhat as a compromise between the geographic center and the weighted center of population, and also a part of town that's heavily traveled. Feel free to change it if you believe there's a better location. G Sisson (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have changed the coordinates to what is officially listed for Jurupa Valley on the United States Geological Survey's Geographic Names Information System Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good. G Sisson (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

CA state route 81
it is a undefined route that goes from south east riverside to devore for a length of 31 milessome info about state route 81. The state Legislators recognize that the route goes through sierra ave California Legislative Analyst's Office. so that means that a large chunk goes through jurupa valley. The only route that seems to fit this description is Van Buren Blvd. does anyone else think so? state route info142.136.72.238 (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As a freeway they'd build around, and not through Van Buren route, especially on the east/north side of the Santa Ana River. Too disruptive to do so. In any case it looks like they are going to drop the idea: --S. Rich (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * oh i thought that the route/expressway that the state was referring back in 1959 followed sierra ave to valley way to Jurupa road then to Van Buren Boulevard because this is the only way i was able to get 31 miles. Either way I hope that Jurupa Valley takes advantage of this unconstructed route just like Fontana did. Fontana used it to rebuild the Sierra/I-10 overpass bridge and I hope Jurupa Valley does something similar too.Javiern (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for Jurupa Valley: The location given by the coordinates in the article is in the ocean, not in Riverside County.

—Jim (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Someone appears to have mistyped a latitude of 33 (when it should be 34). Deor (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jurupa Valley, 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:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20160602200744/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)