Talk:Baja California

This is pretty cool, although I kind of worry how easy it is to just go in and change things. I corrected the spelling of Bahia Concepcion on the main page and I'm not even registered. Debra


 * If it wasn't that easy, would you have made the change? Probly not. So now we have a better guide, because we trust you to do the right thing. Thanks! --(WT-en) Evan 15:33, 25 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Split
Project:Geographical hierarchy refers to Baja California as an example of when not to split a region just because government bureaucrats do. But here it is, split (somewhat inconsistently) into two regions. So my first question is: Should it be? If not, maybe we should remove/replace that example. If it should, my second quesition is whether disambiguating the northern state as Baja California (state) is more confusing than helpful. Yes, it's technically correct, but wouldn't Baja California Norte (disambiguating it from Baja California Sur) be clearer to the casual traveler? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 13:59, 18 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Yep, I'd agree with that – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 16:02, 18 May 2007 (EDT)


 * That sounds like a good idea to me. It's been ten years now, and there are no objections. I'll go ahead and move the page. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there any objection? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Status?
What besides a simple change in the last line keeps this from getting usable status? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems eminently usable with genuine content throughout and no glaring gaps of missing sections. I reset the tag to usable (as I wish you had done 7 years ago when you first noticed it...nudge, nudge.) If somebody disagrees, please add a reply to this discussion to enlighten us as to what's missing (or more usefully, add content to make it stronger). Mrkstvns (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)