Talk:Loma Chiquita, California

the amount does not negate that there are legitimate agricultural/medicinal businesses operating there
Name two. Anmccaff (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that the refs show an operation with soil brought in (i.e., potted pot) and completely artificial watering. These drug raids  say nothing about the place's agricultural suitability, just about its seeming remoteness. They also say nothing about a variety of agricultural and medicinal crops, just pot. Anmccaff (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 March 2017

 * 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: moved. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Loma Chiquita → Loma Chiquita, California – Add the state to the primary article name, to be consistent with disambiguation of related "Category:Unincorporated communities in Santa Clara County, California" wiki pages (e.g,. "Ashram, California", "Bell Station, California", etc.). Earlier, I manually made "Loma Chiquita, California" redirect to "Loma Chiquita", but later found this messed up the category link style (the place name does not become bold/non-link as it should when viewing the category on the place's wiki page). I am unable to move the page myself because of this redirect. Wahn (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per US name convention. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, with caveats. If this article is worth keeping, moving it is a no-brainer.  There's lots of other Itsy-Bitsy Hills out there, no doubt.  On the other hand, I don't think there is enough here for a standalone article. Anmccaff (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment it's not clear to me that this is a populated place. The USGS references treat it as a mountain. The NBC and ABC references don't mention Loma Chiquita at all. The Mercury News reference mentions Loma Chiquita Road. The CalFire references mentions Loma Chiquita Ridge and Loma Chiquita. Plantdrew (talk)
 * It is considered a "community" (geographically constrained populated place) by local agencies, in particular, those which deal with the periodic wildfires in the area  Wahn (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose no need to disambiguate a unique name for which we have no other articles. --В²C ☎ 23:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, there's one in New Mexico (near Cimmaron), Old Mexico, Columbia, Ecuador, and doubtless a good many beyond that. There's a lot of little hills out there, and sometimes that's the only thing notable about them.  The only reason this has any notability is wildfires and potheads, in relatively close proximity to San Jose.  Anmccaff (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed that illicit grows around the area have led to the "pothead" notoriety, which incidentally many residents are against. However, there are legitimate medicinal marijuana businesses operating in the area (look for greenhouses dotting the hillsides in Google Maps/Earth).  There's also legitimate agricultural businesses in the area (e.g., vineyards , orchards, honey farms , etc.), as well as animal training , livestock ranching, etc.  So, there's more to the area than just the grows.  Wahn (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Whether there should actually be stand-alone articles on this U.S. populated place in California, or the others, should probably be a different discussion than this RM one. Also, B2C has been a long-time critic of the WP:USPLACE guidelines. In fact, I would have been surprised if B2C has not cast an oppose vote here. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:USPLACE. Omnedon (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Also point out that per my own Google Maps original research, the location does appear to be populated, although sparsely. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What does your own original research say about the boundaries of it? Depending on what drives the usage, "Loma Chiquita" is either the hill itself, or one of the slopes - it's really a ridge, or the area served by Loma Chiquita road.  Doubtless there is some indeterminate blob of land called this, but when you can't agree if you are in Los Gato$ or Morgan Hill, indeterminate and blob are the operative words.  If you look geographically and historically, I think there are also strong ties to Gilroy.  It is not a place in the sense that, say, "San Jose" is.  Anmccaff (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would argue Loma Chiquita is as much a "place" as San Jose is. Geographically, it's narrowly constrained to its namesake ridge, which includes the road and hillside properties adjacent to that road.  Although currently unincorporated, a starting point for a formal boundary would likely encompass residential and business properties immediately within the vicinity of the road (e.g., for taxation and governance purposes).  As for why the split between Los Gatos Mountains and Morgan Hill zip codes, no idea, but it's not unprecedented even for incorporated areas.  As for possible connections to Gilroy ... from the books and articles I've read, I didn't see any historical references to a strong/direct connection.  Rather, the area has been more closely tied (economically, environmentally, schooling-wise, etc.) to its nearby neighbors, viz., Loma Prieta / Morgan Hill on the Santa Clara County side, and upper Soquel on the Santa Cruz County side. Wahn (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether there should actually be a stand-alone article on this U.S. populated place should probably be a different discussion than this RM one. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:USPLACE. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per the conditions of WP:USPLACE. Whether there should actually be a stand-alone article on this U.S. populated place should probably be a different, notability/deletion discussion. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.

One down, one to go...
Now that the move, a no-brainer, is outta the way, I'd like to suggest a slightly more controversial change: I think this area is still too small, too ill defined, too underpopulated &cet, &cet, ad naus. to justify its own article. That's the bad news. The good news is that there are a good many similar places nearby, and joining them might make a more useful article. Thoughts? Anmccaff (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Here, from, in a nutshell, sums up why I want to move and consolidate it: As with most of the Santa Cruz Mountain area.... A larger article taking in all of the mountain areas, with subsections for particular neighborhoods, slopes, roads &cet, would be more useful than adding each by dribs and drabs. Widening this article would be as good a way to start as any. Anmccaff (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As a region, the Santa Cruz Mountains span several counties, from San Mateo in the north, through Santa Cruz, to Santa Clara counties, ending at the border with Monterey county. How would your proposed consolidation deal with the wide topical variations within?
 * I think the beauty of wikipedia is that these "dribs and drabs" articles reflect the uniqueness of each of the areas they're about, and can be linked together not as a single overarching monolithic page, but rather as a collection of loosely-coupled articles, each of which can grow deeper (or wider) over time as new information/interest arises. Wahn (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By dividing it into logical component regions, I'd think. Anmccaff (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)