Talk:Walnut Creek

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This article sucks[edit]

After thinking on this article awhile, I've concluded that this is actually meant to be a joke article. Maybe this would be funnier if I wasn't distracted by the numerous factual errors throughout the article. Here's a brief list of the factual errors starting from the first paragraph.

  1. Walnut Creek ... has been paved over and placed underground. Incorrect.
  2. ..running off (and/or killing) all the indigenous.. In this region, the indigenous peoples either died of Euro diseases or merged with the Spanish population prior to the US expansion
  3. Commonly referred to as "The Creek" By who? I've never heard this even when living in nearby Berkeley. At the least, it's not common.
  4. Barrows Barrow
  5. visitors with a slightly darker hue then your average Swede are thought of.. I call BS. While I assume Walnut Creek does contain racists, I would judge it as less racist than 80% of the United States. Do 80% of US articles contain similar warnings?
  6. be careful not to jaywalk in front of a police officer. Um, which California city can I go jaywalking in an officer's face and not expect a citation? Sure ain't Berkeley
  7. Do So in the About section we mention Mount fricken Diable state park, but we don't mention it here because that wouldn't be funny?
  8. there are several local cables providers that offer several hundred mind-numbing stations NO! REALLY?
  9. if you have a trust fund, Walnut Creek's new downtown shopping district is a great place to blow a wad of cash I'm thinking I don't need a trust fund to go buy a book at Barnes & Noble
  10. numerous restaurants and several bars that now stay open until the recently unheard of time of 9pm 9PM is pretty standard in Suburban Bay Area cities

About the only good I have to say about this article is that going to Berkeley for food is a good idea -- it's only 20 minutes away and a totally different league of food than Walnut Creek.

This article also claims that California's central valley is the largest valley in the world. Wikipedia says no such thing, so I'm inclined to beleive that the author just invented this fact too.

I'm going to perform a joke-ectomy unless someone objects.

-- (WT-en) Colin 21:55, 3 May 2004 (EDT)

Please feel free to edit the article. I enjoy the humor, but feel free to cut it down in places you don't think appropriate. It'd be nice to add more info. --(WT-en) Evan 01:16, 4 May 2004 (EDT)
The only thing I'm gonna regret is that I'm taking some style away from Wikivoyage (Though I don't agree with this particular style). I'd really love to see an article somewhere that is both fair and exemplifies the kind of humor or punch we'd like to see in Wikivoyage articles. There's a tendency to get vanilla everything when folks who just wander by nuke the jokes one by one (like the nuke of my comment about Fry's salesfolk in Fremont) We need a volunteer! (Not me... I have no sense of humor). -- (WT-en) Colin 01:18, 25 May 2004 (EDT)
"Walnut Creek ... has been paved over and placed underground." That's correct. I've been there. It's under downtown. Entrance A is right by the catanina, and entrance B is by macy's. I can show you a picture. (WT-en) jm51 19:50, 30 Dec 2004 (EST)
The entire thing is underground, or one section? Is it underground for all of Walnut Creek? This is not just an article about downtown. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:02, 30 Dec 2004 (EST)
No, just a good mile or two. It takes about 15 minutes to walk from one end to the other. And it is put in lots various tunnels and waterways as it goes through down. (WT-en) jm51 12:24, 31 Dec 2004 (EST)

Walnut Creek is a bedroom community that morphed into a commercial zone.

It is a bedroom community that resents and enjoys the benefits of commercial residence, but despises the the taxation on emergency services. It is a terrible contradiction. Is this really the Bay Area.. not really. It is very conservative. —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Stupid, useless article[edit]

This article provides no useful information and is not even funny as satire.

It is done[edit]

I performed the jokectomy. For historical reference, let me point out that a previous anon user also whined about this article in the talk page, and also a different anon user once blanked the entire page. So more than just me thought there were issues with this article. -- (WT-en) Colin 01:44, 25 May 2004 (EDT)

This Guy's a Moron[edit]

I'm no big fan of Walnut Creek, but whoever wrote this sounds like some whining, cranky, bitter person making a very lame attempt at humor. The page should be taken down. It contains disinformation.

Project:Plunge forward -- (WT-en) Colin 01:47, 14 Aug 2004 (EDT)

This article is now boring[edit]

OK. So now we have a totally factual, non-cheeky article on Walnut Creek. Great. It actually matches the place. Boring.

Now let's get some 19-year-old sys-admin to go around and remove all of the links to events calendars. Then our travel guide will be complete. -- (WT-en) Mark 16:51, 16 Aug 2004 (EDT)

The insulting tone of the original made the current result inevitable. I left in what I could bear to leave (I restrained myself to merely taking out blatent falsehoods), but I'm unsurprised that someone came along and ate the rest. I believe that it is a fundamental property of this Wiki that a) users will research their own hometowns b) will be offended by any joke that cuts too close to them or is even slightly mean-spirited c) they will remove it because they can and d) we will end up with a Vanilla manual. I think we have a serious need to figure out how to stick in some humor to spice up the place yet somehow manage to avoid d)
Once the current round of edits is done, I plan on re-adding the advisory to consider Berkeley/SF for world-class food but I'll leave out the slander against WC restaurants this time around. -- (WT-en) Colin 18:18, 16 Aug 2004 (EDT)
Most humor will offend someone, and since everyone has the ability to edit pages, this Wiki will quickly degrade into pure facts. The good part: the information will be accurate. The bad part: the information won't offend anyone. You can't expect humor from a committee -- which we, essentially, are. OTOH, we can make sure that there's good information out there. 18:35, 16 Aug 2004 (EDT)


I added the jokes back in. I live in Walnut Creek and have for many years. I think anyone familiar with Walnut Creek will agree with all the changes made. Walnut Creek is a nice town and I enjoy living here very much, but it is still a suburb that deserves much of the disdain heaped on it. I wish someone would do the same for Berkeley and San Francisco. Too serious. We need to lighten up and have some fun. After all, isn't that what travel's all about? Having fun?

This article is now firmly tongue-in-cheek while also providing some decent information. No, Berkeley hippies don't train pigeons to crap on the cars, but if you've spent any time in Berkeley and Walnut Creek you can understand the humor in this tiny example of how different the mindsets of those two cities are. As to the facts in the article, I live only a few miles from Walnut Creek and I've still managed to find a few tips from this article, so it seems pretty useful (although Strictly-to-go Pizza really isn't anything special IMHO). If you're going to remove any humor, please at least leave a note on the talk page about why it had to go - I tend to revert any changes which attempt to tone-down this article. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:04, 3 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Well, the crap about Eugene O'Neill is just onerous and wrong. Humor is one thing--misinformation is another. I think you can have your style and your jokes without denigrating a Nobel prize winning playwright in the process. We get it; you never heard of O'Neill. That's your lack. I'll be back to work on that section. It's crap and it's marginally funny (but only in an anti-intellectual sort of way) and its full of misinformation. I'll be back.

That part seems over the top provocative to me—seems fair to plunge forward. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:58, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

Guide status[edit]

@Mx. Granger: Does this article look like guide status yet to you? It's currently at usable status but has an abundance of listings with good content and coordinates, along with some information in other sections as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like guide status to me, yes. I like the banner. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've upgraded it. That creates a net change in the region of +0 for guide articles because I downgraded San Leandro to usable. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]