Talk:Baywood-Los Osos, California

California Mid‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unincorporated Area vs. "Census-designated place"[edit]

I've said this before on other talk pages of unincorporated areas, but I disagree with the usage of "census-designated place" as the title or identifier of any settlement, regardless of size or status. No one ever says "I live in the census-designated place" of X. Since under California law there are only incorporated cities and unincorporated areas, the usage of terms like town or village would be inappropriate, so if something is not an incorporated city, we should refer to it as an unincorporated x, where x can be area, community, town, or whatever--we don't need to split hairs over that, as long as the word unincorporated is used. However, I think any use of "census-designated place" is inappropriate unless we're actually talking about Census data. I feel like other editors may be getting too hung-up on the bean-counting technicalities being produced by the US Census Bureau when it comes to placenames (on which, by the way, the Census Bureau is not the authority anyway--that rests with local government, and where that fails, with the United States Board on Geographic Names).

Things were especially confused on this article, since, before I changed it, the lead appeared to talk about Baywood-Los Osos as if its whole existence had hinged upon it being a combined CDP, and when that went away for the 2010 Census, everything was referred to as "the former" CDP of Baywood-Los Osos. This seemed a bit silly to me, since the community is still there and still referred to by this combined name. Darkest tree (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the nomenclature, this is absolutely true. But we need SOURCES, darn it! GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baywood-Los Osos, 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://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]