Talk:Southern California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	California Portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Southern California, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage and content of articles relating to Southern California, its people, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
	This article is also supported by WikiProject California.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Interested in attending a Los Angeles Wikipedia Meetup?
Thanks to all who attended Meetup #1, Meetup #2 and/or Meetup #3. If you are interested in another meetup, please visit Wikipedia talk:Meetup/LA/4 and voice your interest. Not in the L.A. area? Check out other meetups around the world!

Contents 1 Definition / Northern Boundary 2 Baja California 3 Definition 4 Explanation of Corrections 5 Removed descriptive section on LA neighborhoods 5.1 The text I removed 5.2 The text we should work on fixing up 6 Northern border 7 Kern County 8 Critizism involving SoCal & San Diego 9 Thirty million? 10 Urban fusion 11 Article needs major revision 11.1 No It Doesn't 12 Location and wealth 13 Difference in the Classification of cities 14 Airports 15 Burbank 16 Oceanside 17 Pasadena 18 Santa Clarita 19 Source of Population Totals 20 East Los Angeles 21 FIRES 22 The South Land

[edit] Definition / Northern Boundary

I reverted recent (as of Nov 2007) edits to the portion of the article pertaining to the "Definition of the Northern Boundary". It's ridiculous to include San Luis Obispo, Kern and Northern Santa Barbara Counties in Southern California. Those are Central California counties & regions. You cannot be as pragmatic as a simple "North/South" defintion, lumping everything south of the geographic center of the State into "Southern California". This article is not titled "The Southern Geographic Region of California". I think it is just common sense that Southern California is everything south of the Tehachapis. Ask somebody from Delano or Paso Robles or San Luis Obispo if they live in Southern California and they will laugh at you. California is more complex than "North/South". There is Southern California, Northern California, Central Valley, Central Coast, etc. Dcmcgov 08:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it's common sense that Southern California never includes Kern, SLO, etc. As I though I made clear in my edit, when California is divided into two parts, (north and south), it is often divided (unofficially) at the 6th parallel. I agree that California is a lot more complex than just a north and a south part and that the two-part devision of California (north/south, no central part) is not really adequate. hajhouse 16:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What is "the sixth standard parallel south"? Is this equivalent to 36th parallel north?

California can be divided in various ways. Californians living outside the biggest urban concentrations naturally favor divisions that recognize their own regions. People from the far north view the SF Bay Area as not really Northern California. Nevertheless, a two-way north-south division is frequently used, although it may often be without a definite boundary in mind. A three-way definition should also be mentioned, but Central California is less used, poorly defined and primarily consists of two regions, Central Coast of California and Central Valley (California), that are geographically separated, quite different, and not closely economically connected. --JWB (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone ever use the definition ending at San Gabriel Mountains or San Gabriel Ranch? Unless someone can come up with references, I would like to reduce or eliminate it from the article. --JWB (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baja California

Shouldn't "Southern California" be Baja California? This is truly Southern California. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:30, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Baja California is a state (actually two states) in Mexico. Southern California is the common name for a (more or less loosely defined) region of the US state of California. Can you cite a different usage of the term? --Brion 23:16, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, what I was pointing out is that California can be just the U.S. state, but more properly is the entire area (a region, just like "Siberia" or "New England" but in this case now in two countries)encompassing the State of California and Baja California, so... --Daniel C. Boyer 14:56, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is this a real, modern usage or are you just speculating for fun? --Brion 00:08, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Maybe he means "south of California"? --Menchi (Talk)â 23:53, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually, among Chicano activists (e.g. members of MEChA), it's the other way around -- California is viewed as an extension (but as yet unrecovered) of the Mexican state of Baja California. Joelwest 09:56, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Want to spread more lies about MECha?

MMM, shouldn't Mexicali the capital of the state of Baja California and Tijuana be included in this Megalopolis or Southern California since they are border cities. I think they should because they contribute to a lot as well. Well this is my opinion :)

In this usage, the word "Baja" translates to "low" in English, so "Baja California" is "Low(er) California", a completely separate entity to California. To include Baja California in Southern California is as asinine as including South Carolina if one was referring to southern North Carolina. And besides, common usage of Southern California by residents never includes Baja.Brien Clark 05:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

How come Wikipedia's definition for "Southern California" separates it from Central California, but the page for "Northern California" seperates it from Southern California? What is the Wikipedia definition for Central California? Now I'll never get to sleep. Mackerm 05:16, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Northern California", in my opinion, can include or exclude Central California, depending on who you ask, but southern California never includes it. (This is coming from a born-and-raised southern Californian.) -Branddobbe 07:30, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to know who the "many" are that consider Las Vegas and Phoenix to be part of the outgrowth of Southern California. I'd like to know one, besides the author. A base-less statement IMO. westmt01 4-28-06

When I was a Southern California lad in the 50s and 60s, many people considered the region to include the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada (e.g., the old area code 714, or the current territory of the Automobile Club of Southern California). Of course, I was attracted to that nice, more-or-less straight east-west line. :) Jim 06:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of Corrections

1. Spelled San Berna-R-dino, not Bernadino.

1. The "high desert" is only in L.A., Kern, and San Bernardino Counties, not Riverside county.

1. The "lower desert" is in Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial counties.

1. Coachella Valley (Indio, Palm Springs area) is in Riverside County, not Imperial.

1. Orange County is not part of the Inland Empire. --Anon 05:47, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard of Imperial described as part of the IE either.

[edit] Removed descriptive section on LA neighborhoods

I removed the following from the article, because, while it is a good thing if we had some text like this, the current version is so riddled with sterotypes, odd inclusions and exclusions, and other errors of interpretation that it would be better not to have any text. It's a really hard task to describe whole neighborhoods in a sentance or two, and while I admire the audacity, this is not a succesful version. Please feel free to improve the copy I include below. Hopefully we can get this up to a good standard... JesseW 09:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The text I removed

The Los Angeles Westside is known for its showbiz types, with predominantly affluent white as well
as a large Jewish populations.  The San Fernando Valley is regarded as the X-rated film capital.  
South Central Los Angeles is noted for its troubled [[African American]] population, with frequent 
drive-by shootings.  The Los Angeles Eastside has predominantly poor working-class [[Latino]] 
neighborhoods as well as several gentrified neighborhoods.  The San Gabriel Valley may be best known 
for its large lower-middle-class to upper-class [[Chinese American]] populations with 4 major 
suburban "[[Chinatowns]]" and with contigious cities approaching Asian American majorities.   

[edit] The text we should work on fixing up

The Los Angeles Westside is known for its showbiz types, with predominantly affluent white as well as a large Jewish populations. The San Fernando Valley is regarded as the X-rated film capital. South Central Los Angeles is noted for its troubled African American population, with frequent drive-by shootings. The Los Angeles Eastside has predominantly poor working-class Latino neighborhoods as well as several gentrified neighborhoods. The San Gabriel Valley may be best known for its large lower-middle-class to upper-class Chinese American populations with 4 major suburban "Chinatowns" and with contigious cities approaching Asian American majorities.

"Forget it Jake, it's...Chinatown..."

[edit] Northern border

How can we even take seriously a definition that lists Santa Barbara as being outside of Southern California? That's absurd. Does anyone really use any specific mountain range as a "border"? -68.8.31.231 05:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Forget it Jake, it's...Chinatown..."

Cute remarks aside...AAA has defined this informally in their magazine over the years! I.m Southern Californa born,& have followed this for 30 years at least. Southern California is informally defined by the (AAA) Auto Club of Southern California, since they distribute the majority of the maps and tourism info. They have considered the the coastal communities of Santa Barbara county to be the extreme northwest of geo-cultural Southern California." In fact the tunnel taking highway 101 away from the sight of the sea north of Gaviota (Santa Barbara Co.) was cited as the AAA gateway to the "Central Coast". Buelton,Solvang, Lompoc are all clearly "Central California", though in north Santa Barbara Co. On the I-5, entry into the Central Valley near Grapevine is the portal to and from Southern California. Bakersfield, is NOT climatically anything like metro Southern Cal. I would use the Kern County/L.A. County line at Tejon Pass to keep it neat. Southern California is geogrqaphical region marked by climate, lifestyle, and culture, in the sense that "Provence" is a distinct region of France. One should not consult a map and simply trace a west to east tier of counties, as an imagined divide. Nativeborncal 05:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. However, there are those (in and out of Santa Barbara) that feel Santa Barbara is a "Central Coast" city, and therefore outside of Southern California. It's basically common sense that So Cal is everything south of the Tehachapi Mtns, but there are those that like to argue semantics. They have a voice too. Dcmcgov 21:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Nobody uses the San Gabriel Mountains as the border - this is the first I've seen of it and it strikes me as absurd - you leave out the Antelope Valley, Santa Clarita, and Victorville - and what about Ventura/Oxnard? Mentioning this border alternative only serves to add confusion.EmergentProperty 02:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kern County

When even the tourist board of Kern County doesn't think its part of Southern California, there's no reason we should include it as such. Kern County is widely recognized as a Central Valley county geographically, economically, and culturally. Infernalfox

Here is the intro to Northern California:

Northern California (sometimes NorCal or NoCal) refers to the northern portion of the U.S. state of California, roughly covering all of those counties except for the ten counties which make up Southern California.

In other words, the basic division is north/south. I see that in the California geography template articles most of the sub-regions do not specify counties. Kern could be included in Central Valley, Mojave, and Sierra Nevada regions, if they listed counties. It belongs to all of those regions, as well as to Southern California. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:31, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

A meta-wikipedia reference would be an inappropriate source as to whether Kern County is a Southern California county. GIS "Kern County Southern California" first results to show up clearly indicate the Central Valley identification for the county. The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) considers it as a Central Valley. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) does NOT include Kern County.

     Per the division of California into two, counties just north of Kern are definitely not Northern California.  Sierra Madre countries on the southern Nevada border are also never referred to as part of NorCal.  Kern is also not a Sierra Nevada county, San Bernardino is to its east.  Northern and Southern California have for sometime widely-recognized boundaries, integral to this knowledege is that there parts in the middle that are neither.

This seems a very valid criticism to me. Why hasn't the article been changed?LordSnow 22:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Critizism involving SoCal & San Diego

I was wondering if there should a critism section. Basicially, there has been some complaints, especially in San Diego, that they get left out on "Southern California", mainly by the media. For example, there is a radio station that considered themselves "The best sports talk station in Southern California", yet, they do not even broadcast in San Diego. This has also kinda spun off the term "LoCal".

If you can find some sources then go for it. But I don't follow your logic regarding the radio station. They could be, or claim to be, the best sports station in the country or the world without having to broadcast to those areas. Anyway, the tendency of users of "SoCal" to mean "Greater LA., Long Beach, and Orange County" is noteworthy. -Willmcw 19:33, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I've never really noticed that. Greater LA is referred to as the "Southland" not Southern California. By the way, I lived there all my life, and to refer to Southern California as "SoCal" is a Northern Californian thing (and highly annoying).LordSnow 22:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

"SoCal" was a sloppy abbreviation of mine rarely used south of Point Conception, which LordSnow was correct to question. I meant "Southern California". -Willmcw 09:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Southland and SoCal refer to the LA Basin, including Orange County, by common usage. As a San Diegan, I really don't want to be "merged" with the area. Technically, Southern California includes San Diego, but culturally and by common usage, it really does not. My 2 cents. Dananderson 19:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Please speak for you self. I live in San Diego, but I don't mind if San Diego is considered Southern California. In fact, I believe it is, both culturally and terroritory wise. I don't believe that two places (Los Angeles and San Diego) have to have the same culture in order to be considered "Southern California". Think of it this way: There are different parts of Los Angeles right? Think about Bevelerly Hills compared to South Central. Both completely different places and cultures right? San Diego may be considered conservative while Los Angeles is considered liberal, but that does not make San Diego not Southern California culture wise.

Agreed. I have lived in both San Diego and Los Angeles (as well as Ventura and Orange Counties), and San Diego is included in Southern California technically, geographically, culturally and in common usage. This is common knowledge, and while there may be a handful of "hardcore" San Diegans that somehow feel a need to seperate themselves from any relationship or assocation to Los Angeles, that is simply impossible. Dcmcgov 14:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thirty million?

The first paragraph currently claims that Southern California's population is 30,000,000. Borrowing California Department of Finance data and using the most extensive credible definition of Southern California (the ten counties of Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura), I get a total population of 22,565,762.

So where did 30,000,000 come from?

Are you including residents of Phoenix and Las Vegas in this figure? If you add the 2000 Census counts of the entire states of Nevada and Arizona (which I'm loath to do), you do get a grand total of 29,694,651. Throwing in the 1,200,000 residents of Tijuana and the 900,000 of Mexicali puts us well above the 30 million mark. But the article should make more clear that's what's going on. —Joshers 03:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Urban fusion

Regarding Calwatch's edit (Jan 20 '06). He says "he communities along Interstate 15 have nearly fused together," citing specifically Temecula's association with San Diego. However, it's my contention that the 15 is one of the last corridors in SoCal where the cities are still somewhat separated. I haven't gone north of about Escondido in a good while, but if I do recall what's up there is Fallbrook (tiny) and then nothing except Palomar mountain until you get to Temecula. Now, I have an even vaguer idea of what's north of Temecula along the 15, but looking at a map it looks like next to nothing until Corona/Riverside; I just don't think the 15 is a good example of the continuity of urban development along freeways. I propose changing this to the 10, which as far as I can tell is continuously urban pretty much from Santa Monica to San Bernardino. Soltras 15:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, the 10 is urban about to Beaumont, perhaps 90 miles east of Santa Monica. The 15/215 corridor is the real corridor, as the Cleveland Mountain range gets in the way. The 215 towns up the road are Temecula, Murrieta, Perris, Moreno Valley, Riverside. Calwatch 06:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually Soltras, you probably need to take a trip up the 15 North from Escondido to Corona one of these days soon. Over the past 5-10 years, this area has boomed tremendously, and is virtually completely developed. The only patches of open space left these days is the mountainous 10 mile stretch between North Escondido and South Temecula (but even this corridor is being rapidly developed) and the hilly 2 mile stretch just north of Lake Elsinore and south of Temescal Canyon. The developements of Temecula, Murrietta, Wildomar, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Temescal Canyon and South Corona have truly nearly fused together. The 215 is still a little more disconnected, but the 15 is another urbanized ribbon. Dcmcgov 14:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Well the 10-mile stretch of undeveloped land you point out between Escondido and Temecula is particularly what I was referring to as evidence opposing the claim that the 15 is continuously urban. That stretch is two thirds the length of the 5 through Camp Pendleton, and I think no one claims that south Orange County and Oceanside are fused. The original author even specifically noted that the urban continuity along the 15 has resulted in an association of Temecula with San Diego. This may (perhaps) be true of Temecula's local culture, but the wording and positioning of this fact within the article implies that the town is attached to San Diego through continuous urbanness. I think the 15 is a bad choice to illustrate this phenomenon (and particularly to focus on Temecula's association with San Diego) when there are plenty of other freeways, like the 10, that demonstrate the fusion without the countering evidence of a 10-mile moutain pass. Soltras 16:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs major revision

This article needs some major revision, to-wit:

1. In the first paragraph, it says that the SoCal megalopolis includes Phoenix, Vegas & Tijuana; however, it defines the borders of SoCal as the Mexican border to the south and the Arizona and Nevada borders to the east. Well, which is it?

2. The article mentions LAX and Van Nuys airports- but what about San Diego, John Wayne/Orange County, Ontario, Long Beach, Burbank- these are important commercial airports as well. Certainly, if Van Nuys warrants mentioning, then these do also.

3. How can you justify saying SoCal is the Sports...Capital of the World when Los Angeles doesn't even have a Pro football team. I'd be careful throwing around unsubstantiated POV like that.

4. Excuse me?? What about Mexicali, that city is a booming city if you ask me...

Remember Joe Friday (So Cal TV Cop)- just the facts, ma'am? Hokeman 14:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No It Doesn't

1. If you read the article in it's entirety, you will find that there are no clear boundaries for Southern California. If you are speaking in the strictest of terms, SoCal is everything south of the Tehachapi Mountains, West of the Colorado River, and North of the U.S/Mexico Border. In looser terms, over the past 2 decades a "MegaMetro" has begun to form that includes all of the strict interpretation of SoCal, as well as the Las Vegas, Phoenix and Tijuana Metros. The article very clearly addresses this issue, all you have to do is read it.

2. The article did need to mention the other international airports in Southern California, and so I added them. That is called a minor addition, not a "major revision" as you suggest is needed. However, no such mention is needed for the smaller airports of Long Beach and Burbank. Van Nuys is not an international airport, but it is the world's busiest general aviation airport, and is therefore deserving of mention as one of the key SoCal Airports.

3. Name another region of the country where you have as many storied and succesful sports franchises gathered together. The UCLA Bruins basketball program is the most succesful and storied college basketball program in history. The same is true for the USC Trojans football program, the Cal State Fullerton baseball program, the Pepperdine volleyball program and UCLA softball program. Those are just the college teams. The Dodgers are one of the most storied franchises in all of sports, and the Lakers are arguably the most succesful sports franchise in the nation (perhaps second to only the Yankees). The Angels have been one of the top MLB teams since the new millenium, and Clippers and Chargers have had both had success in recent years. You also have to consider the High School Sports programs in So Cal. More blue chip athletes come out of So Cal high schools than any other region of the nation. The fact that SoCal remains dominant in so many sports, and constantly in the national eye, despite not having an NFL franchise is only further proof of the aforementioned claim. From top to bottom, all things considered, So Cal is the sports capital of the nation.

Stick to what you're good at, Hokeman, like alligator attacks and Florida towns!  :-P Just kidding. I enjoy reading your articles (awesome job with the shark attacks article!), but I had to take issue with your claims here.

Dcmcgov 21:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location and wealth

While I think the section is just a piece of original research I at least feel the responsibility to maintain some facts here. Thus, I am continuing to revert the changes by one 71.144.105.17 to include the unreferenced section. Please feel free to have someone revert or delete the changes unless we can find something to back it up with. Calwatch 08:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to help this section out (if it should even be kept in at all) because it is poorly written, lacking in any qualifying facts or statistics (other than poor stereotyping), is extremely speculative and condescending in nature and leaves out the fact that the majority of the wealth in So Cal is not in the hilly suburbs, but in the beach communities (Malibu, La Jolla, Manhattan Beach, Newport Beach, etc. Ironically enough, the writer states that "Newport Beach is relatively low-lying" compared to the hilly suburbs... OK, this is just an observation from someone who has lived in SoCal for 26 years, but typically, beaches tend "lie lower" than hills.) The writer is very clearly somebody residing in, or infatuated with, the Anaheim Hills area in hilly Northern Orange County (see: Anaheim Hills listed first, followed by Villa Park which is virtually the same neighborhood as Anaheim Hills) who is in a "pissing match" with coastal Southern Orange County (see: listing Mission Viejo and San Clemente as lower class than Anahiem Hills. The problem with that is the that the median income in San Clemente is $80,000 and the median price for a home is well over one million dollars. The same applies to Mission Viejo, whose median income is $90,000 and a million dollars will get you a 50 year-old fixer upper.) I've re-written the article; it's not perfect, but I feel it is a much better approach to this subject matter.

Thanks, I appreciate your willingness to clean this up. FYI, Malibu is very hilly. -Will Beback 06:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

True. But Malibu is a much more famous, and popular with the rich, for it's 37 miles of beaches than it is for it's hills, ridges and canyons. 67.124.202.29 03:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Difference in the Classification of cities

There are two seperate categories for cities. but there is not much difference between the size of the cities in the subdivision.

[edit] Airports

I removed the airports from the list of major cities, as there was already an airport list under Transportation. Also, I updated the airport list to reflect airports that currently have commerical service. I may have left an airport or two off. Dtcomposer 03:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burbank

The inclusion of Burbank - 106,739 as a Major city and its inclusion as a Principal City: Burbank - 105,400 with a different population is not acceptable and needs to be changed. Dbiel 05:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oceanside

Like Burbank it is listed as a Major City with 175,085 and as a Principal city with 161,029. I would think that Oceanside should be removed from the Major City List when Huntington Beach, a larger city is not considered a Major City but is definately in the same class as Oceanside. Dbiel 05:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pasadena

It is also listed both as a Major and Principal City but at least with the same population both places. I would think that it should be deleted from the Principal City List Dbiel 05:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Santa Clarita

Yet one more city listed both as a mjor and Principal City but will different population totals, Santa Clarita - 187,600 (a major city) Santa Clarita - 167,954 (a principal city)

[edit] Source of Population Totals

I have been having a difficult time finding the source used for the population totals listed in this article. I did find one source http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/prelim06/t4al_ca.htm that lists totals for all but two of the listed cities that fall within the same approximate range. Burbank would be the one major exception in that it indicate a variance of over 30%. The second exception would be East Los Angeles which did not appear on the list as a city in California, but was probably because it is not a city but rather an unincorporated area

[edit] East Los Angeles

I am deleting this from the list of principal city simply due to the fact that is not a city but rather an unicorporated area

[edit] FIRES

This area is on fire. Two of these are arson related. Need a mention here. This shit is all over the news. 65.173.104.140 22:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, it's all over the news, so why bother? Wikipedia has a longer viewpoint. It, however, would be good to mention the tendency for the dry rural areas to catch fire as well as a mention of sociopathic reasons that arson might occur. Binksternet 22:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The South Land

>> "Southern California, also colloquially known as SoCal or the South Land" <<

I'm sorry, but what the hell? I've lived in Southern California my entire life, and not once have I ever heard it referred to as "the South Land."

     I hear the phrase on KFI every so often.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.165.137.124 (talk) 20:44:06, August 19, 2007 (UTC) 

I too reside in SoCal (Oceanside/Vista), and I have not heard the term "South Land" very often either, but it does sound familiar. I think I've heard it said before on KNX 1070 radio, but I thought they were referring to an area of LA. Anyone else know anything about this term? Ryrodman1 02:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You guys must live under a rock. KFI 640, KNX 1070, KLAC 570 and all the TV stations refer to the "Southland" multiple times a day every day of the week. Dcmcgov 07:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)