Talk:San Bernardino, California

Edits to the lede 2/2016
An editor keeps adding a detailed description of the December shooting to the lede. The only mention in the article is a link to the page on the shooting. Completely out of guidelines. IMO, the bit being added to the lede would be too much even for the body, given the way the history section is laid out. 2001-2015, nothing happened. Then in December 2015, enough happened to write a small book on. Yes it is important. Not that important. WEIGHT. I can live with 1 sentence in the lede. I can live with a sentence or two in the 21st century section, in the context of expanding that section to include other points. We don't need to rewrite the story here. It has its own page and we have wikilinking. John from Idegon (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's two issues here, the second made clear by the first. The second error, in my humble opinion, is that there is only a link to the shooting in this article. While the shooting itself does deserve its own article, there should be some detail about it in San Bernadino's article as well. That being said, I think either the original insertion into the lead, or the edited down version should remain in the article, but in the body of the article, not the lead. John from Idegon is spot on about it not conforming to wp:lead, and giving it undue weight. However, if the paragraph is inserted into the body, then a line, a single line, could be inserted into the lead, something along the lines of "In December 2015, the city became the focus of national attention when the worst terrorist attack since 9/11 occurred...".  Onel 5969  TT me 12:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with John. A short, contextualized discussion that is appropriately weighted seems appropriate for the body. The lede is too recentist and booster-ish as it is. It should be rewritten to appropriately summarize the article. Then it may possibly include a mention of the incident. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 18:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason not to have a link at the top saying "for information on the shooting, go here" -- I visited this page today to find wikipedia's article on the subject (I did not succeed!), and I'm sure others have as well. Presumably the link would be removed as time progressed and the issue left the news. This would be separate from how much space the *body* of the article should spend talking about the shooting. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 12:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Googie car wash
The Sparkle Car Wash appears to be a notable place in San Bernardino because of its Googie architecture. I recommend keeping the image. Bahooka (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Images are supposed to expand on the text in the article. There is no copy whatsoever on this place or on the architectural style.  My objection disappears if either of those issues are rectified with appropriately referenced copy on either subject. John from Idegon (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. For the image to stay, there should be referenced text in the article on googie's relationship to Route 66 and San Bernardino history. James (talk/contribs) 02:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per my rational here. -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 21:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If you can provide some referenced copy in the article for that, again my objections disappear. John from Idegon (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)