Talk:Los Angeles/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Los Angeles. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Why does the title for this entry not bear ", California" like other cities' entries?

---

The bit about the "pachucos" is not NPOV. They attacked servicemen as well. They weren't just innocent victims.

---

Sorry those images I took are so ugly. They look like they were taken in the 1970s but they werent.  :-/ Koyaanis Qatsi 21:50 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

They do look a little bit "vintage", but they're better than nothing. ;) Nice job. --Dante Alighieri 21:51 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Is the big long Spanish name still in force? I thought that most of it had just been dropped. -Smack 23:03 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Searching the official city web site for the Spanish name gives only a few historical hits, and the current city charter and the city seal use "The City of Los Angeles", so I moved the Spanish name to the history section. 130.188.8.9 07:50, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

To alleviate size stress on this page, I moved the history to a separate page. 209.245.203.129 01:15, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

I'm having a bit of a problem with the "religion" section. The assertion that "no religion was founded there" is troublesome, and the rest of the section is amazingly non-informative. I actually know less about the major religious factions in Los Angeles after reading this. I will research and augment. - Feedle 16:46, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

I dunno how Koyannis' picture got taken off the article, but I put it back on. WhisperToMe 00:21, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I need some advice regarding what is ok and not ok to post. I publish a Web site titled Travelconsumer.com which has several pages of information about Los Angeles and includes articles about L.A. When I list Travelconsumer.com's city guide in the external links section it gets removed almost immediately and I received a warning about publishing a link to a commercial site on Wikipedia. What I don't understand is this. Travelconsumer.com does not sell any products or services. None! Yet other sites in the external links section are purely commercial and provide no information except about the products they sell. This being the case, why does my link to http://www.travelconsumer.com get bumped. If having advertising on my site is an issue, then nearly all of the external links on Wikipedia should be removed. Please advise.

My email address is listed http://www.travelconsumer.com/contact.htm.

We have to be very careful with the external links section of any wiki page, primarily because many people wish to self-promote their own sites by adding links to wikipedia. If everyone that maintains a Los Angeles related website added their links to articles, the section on external links would be way too long.

As a general rule for city-related sites, I try and keep the external links only to official sites, such as the city government site, chamber of commerce, convention & visitors bureau, and such. Links to media (radio & tv) websites in the area are not needed as this information should be covered under a media subsection (with separate articles for the local newspaper and major TV stations, and links to their websites inside those articles). Links to blogs and personal sites are huge no-nos. A few well-designed tourism-related sites are ok, but my impression of the travelconsumer.com site is that it's really nothing more than a list of links to companies. There's really nothing of value on the site worth linking to.

Dr. Cash 19:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why links to blogs are a big no-no? I run the worlds largest network of city based blogs and our Los Angeles blog, [1] is the most read group blog in LA. It's constantly ranked in the top 100 blogs on the web and is frequented by all kinds of local media and politicians. There's almost 25 staff contributors and every post relates directly to Los Angeles and we're flooded with e-mails about what a great resource it is so I don't understand why that isn't something that would be appropriate in the External links section. If someone is looking for more info about LA that's one of the best places on the web to look. Can you clairify?

Sean Bonner

I believe that I have read that California lead the nation (and was a significant portion of world output) in oil output, in one year in the early 20th century -- perhaps 1923 ? I think this was driven by huge finds near and in Los Angeles. This article only alludes to oil discoveries in the late nineteenth century.

I've added a bit more, in the history section Will McW 19:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is the Tiburcio Vasquez in the article the one whom the Vasquez rocks are named for? They sit on the north side of Freeway 14 (Antelope Valley freeway) near Pearblossom. All I know is that bandits used to hide in Vasquez rocks 207.69.139.9 08:36, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yep, vasquez >> vasquez rocks

Yes, indeed. Please see the new Vasquez Rocks article for more. BTW, the Rocks sit near Agua Dulce not Pearblossom. Pearblossom is a good 30 miles away from Vasquez Rocks, and the Pearblossom Highway exit off of the Antelope Valley Freeway - which I think you meant - is around 15 miles north. --avnative 12:58, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

I think we should move the history section to its own page--it really is quite big. jengod 23:30, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, move to its own page, but leave a one paragraph summary on this one and head it as:

Well...what we have now is quite shitty. The population data should be moved too. --~~~~ ==History==
''Main article: [[History of Los Angeles]]''

[text of summary]

--Jiang 23:33, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that population data table isn't working. And feel free to revert my link to the time zone page. Somebody's doing heavy work there, but it's probably a lost cause. The Pacific Standard Time Zone page just plain sucks. Mackerm 06:55, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What the hell! The history section of this great city only says: "The history includes earthquakes, riots, mudslides, movie stars, oil rigs, aerospace pioneers, surfers, politicians and palm trees." That is horrid and much worse than having a section that is too long. In the future please do not just move sections like this - at least a several paragraph summary is needed for this article. Yet another thing for my ToDo list. ---mav

I am disputing this article's neutrality for the following reasons: 1) "manifest destiny" refers to one point of view or theory of American History 2) the part on the Owens Valley water deal is biased in that it portrays the people who arranged for the aqueduct as being somehow villainous. 3) The stereotypes section is pointless and lame. 4) The history of L.A. as an Open Shop town part is too ideological/leftist to be construed as serious history - maybe pseudohistory?

Having said that, I will now proceed to post something on food in Los Angeles and enlighten all to the invention of the French Dip Sandwich (either Cole's or Phillippe's, but most likely Phillippe's), the salad and the Tommy's Hamburger. I will invite others to augment that part.

--User:tcotrel 16:28 22 Feb 2004

If you don't like something change it, don't just post the disputed neutrality notice and leave it for others to clean up. You're the one disputing the neutrality, so you should be the one to make the changes. jengod 00:34, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

I tried making changes a few weeks/months ago. The bias, as I see it IMHO, is too widespread and would require a complete re-write.
User:tcotrel 16:50 22 Feb 2004

I've read a little bit of LA and Calif. history, including some of the leftist stuff. On the two points, I would agree the length and POV of the open shop part is polemical and perhaps "pseudohistory"; outside of the Nation or In These Times, you'd never see a text that spent this much time on it. Perhaps there should be a separate articles on Los Angeles labor history for those who care that much about it.

OTTH, it's impossible to do a history of Los Angeles in the early 20th century without considering how essential water was to the city's growth and where it came from; this is in all the textbooks. It seems to me that this could be easily fixed -- a paragraph could talk about the need for water, and a concluding paragraph could talk about what getting the water did for the growth of the city in the 20th century. As an Oxy grad, Thomas, I think you could add those two paragraphs to make your case.

Don't let what's "perfect" be the enemy of the good. Joelwest 04:49, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Until the latest changes, Los Angeles redirected here, and there was a disambiguation notice at the top of this article in case anyone was looking for the county or the ship or whatever. Now, Los Angeles has the disambiguation, with no redirect. The problem is that 99% of the people entering Los Angeles are looking for this article. Now they have to go through an extra step to get here. There are many links to Los Angeles that haven't been changed to point to Los Angeles, California, and even if all were changed, new ones would constantly be added. I think the former setup was better. JamesMLane 08:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Los Angeles is no longer a redirect to this page. Los Angeles is now a disambig. page. So there is no point in putting the notice at the top of this article, since nobody will get here by following a Los Angeles link. Actually, this page should be at Los Angeles and the disambig. page at Los Angeles (disambiguation), but somebody moved it to Los Angeles, California and made it impossible to move it back to Los Angeles. I agree 99% of the people typing "Los Angeles" will be looking for the article on the City of Los Angeles in California, but as I said, somebody (wrongly) thought it was better to put this page at Los Angeles, California. If I had admin powers, I'd moved this page back to Los Angeles. --Cantus 08:26, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done. The city is now at Los Angeles, and is pointed to by Los Angeles, California; the disambig is at Los Angeles (disambiguation). I am going to rewrite the disambig to point out that all the other things named Los Angeles listed are named after the city. —Morven 08:47, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Good job. Thanks! --Cantus 09:05, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to be the skunk at the garden party, but.... There was a huge brouhaha about this issue with regard to the place where I live. One faction said the convention for U.S. cities is Cityname, Statename so the article should be at [[New York, New York]]. The other faction said the convention is to use the most common name so the article should be at [[New York City]]. Opinion was about evenly divided, but that was partly because of the multiple meanings of "New York" and even the multiple meanings of "New York, New York" (song title, etc.) Los Angeles, California doesn't have these problems, so the article should be at that title, as I think it was until a day ago. The recent change was not that someone moved the article, but that [[Los Angeles]] was converted from redirect to disambiguation. Yes, it follows that, if [[Los Angeles]] is disambiguation, then no disambiguation header is needed at [[Los Angeles, California]]. Nevertheless, I think that the new setup and the one that immediately preceded it are both wrong. Recommendation: We should go back to the way things were a couple days ago, with [[Los Angeles]] as a redirect to [[Los Angeles, California]], and [[Los Angeles, California]] beginning with a link to [[Los Angeles (disambiguation)]], which has the links to the other meanings. JamesMLane 09:43, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but I completely disagree with your view. I believe the current setup is the better, because in the English world "Los Angeles" is the City of Los Angeles in 99% of the cases. Naming every US city using City, State is a little ridiculous. --Cantus 10:21, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The advantage of naming every U.S. city with Cityname, Statename is that, if that convention is applied uniformly, then no one making a link will have to guess or waste time checking where the article is. To be sure, the convention, at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names), isn't undisputed. The only obvious alternative, though, is to say that most articles should be at Cityname, Statename, but particularly well-known cities should be just Cityname. That would mean that people would be back to guessing at least some of the time, undercutting the value of having a convention. You can read all you might ever want to read about this subject at Talk:New York City. By the way, the article on the Big Apple has variously been at New York, New York, City of New York and New York City just during the last few months. I think this kind of thing illustrates the advantage of having a convention and sticking to it. I've also heard it said that there's a policy of leaving an article where the original author put it, but I don't know where the LA article started. JamesMLane 10:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I personally have no problem with either having the city at Los Angeles and having Los Angeles, California redirect to it, or vice versa. I think that either name is OK, but that neither should be a disambiguation page.

Since (as far as I am aware) everything else named 'Los Angeles' is named after the city, it's pretty ludicrous to have a "Several things are named Los Angeles" disambiguation page as what one gets if one goes to Los Angeles. The city is what people will be expecting, so that should be what's given.

I support the City, State convention for US cities by and large, but I also see the point of having well-known cities directly at the most commonly used names if they are unambiguous by Wikipedia standards. The whole problem is solved by redirects anyway. Why do people hate redirects so much? This is exactly what they're designed for -- so an article can appear at multiple places in the namespace. So long as I can link to Los Angeles, California and be sure that that name points to the article on the city, I don't see what the problem is -- whether the article itself or a redirect to it lives there. —Morven 19:05, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

The name of the article itself is a pretty important parameter (ie. the name in the URL). --Cantus 10:35, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd prefer the city to be described at Los Angeles, California. Mackerm 22:44, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So do I. For all the reasons given above. I'll move it back in a day or two. --mav 23:49, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Los Angeles is a world city, as is London, for example. In the Category:World cities, the city names that follow the US custom of appending the state look odd, in comparison to the other world cities like Rome. Ancheta Wis 08:01, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is the standard way to name cities in the U.S. --mav

For well known cities such as this, the rule doesn't apply. Don't move it back. --Cantus 02:34, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

The only exception is New York City but that was due to too an ambiguity issue. Don't move this article from where it has been for over two years. --mav 05:10, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What is meant by Los Angeles's sister cities? [[User:Nichalp|¶ nichalp | Talk]] 18:49, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Not very much. Follow the link to Sister city and you can read about this program. It usually involves exchange of minor but symbolic gifts, visits by delegations from one city to the other, etc. JamesMLane 09:37, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Most city articles on wikipedia mention this, and the common standard is to have it as a main section, near the end of article (not under "government"). Anyway, the list of LA's sister cities was actually incorrect; there are 21, not 20. The complete lists of sister cities are available online here. Dr. Cash 19:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I take issue with the statement that the LA metro area is frequently called the "Southland". That is a relatively recent nickname that many people are not aware of. If I'm not mistaken, journalists were the first to use that nickname.

Additionally, "Southland" has been used to apply to Southern California, which includes San Diego.

I at least am familiar with the term. Also, some people would consider San Diego to in fact be part of the LA metropolitan area—looking at a satelite map it's hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. I think the term should at least be referenced here somehow. Theshibboleth 22:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

L.A. has so damn many neighborhoods that no attempt should really be made to list them all on the main page. Over on the Los Angeles neighborhoods category page, I came up with eight general areas into which the city could be categorized, but I think I'll get rid of the crap over there.

The categories I came up with are:

• Downtown Los Angeles - the areas bounded by the river, the 10, Western, and Melrose Avenue/the Glendale Freeway
• Greater Hollywood - Hollywood, WeHo, the Hollywood Hills, Silver Lake, Los Feliz, and Atwater Village
• South Los Angeles - what's currently defined as South Central Los Angeles
• Mid-City Los Angeles - everything between Fairfax, the 10, Western, and Melrose
• East Side - everything east of the Glendale city limits and the river (Highland Park, Eagle Rock, Boyle Heights, etc.)
• San Fernando Valley - all the SFV neighborhoods plus the cities of Burbank, San Fernando, and Hidden Hills
• West Side - what's currently defined as Los Angeles Westside
• Harbor Area - Pedro, Wilmington, Harbor City, Terminal Island, the shoestring ("Harbor Gateway")

Thoughts?

West LA is rarely referred to as West Side. There must be another alternative, but it is slightly restrictive not to include Santa Monica, the other Beach Cities, PV, etc, since it really is one city. Another problem is that people are from a neighborhood, and West LA gets the flavor exactly if one is being evasive about where one lives. Ancheta Wis 17:28, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Only problem with that is there's actually a neighborhood called "West Los Angeles." I see "West Side" in print and hear it in speech all the time. I know that if I tell someone I live in Palms and they don't know where it is, I say "West Side," and they usually figure it out.

The Beach Cities and the PV Peninsula are a totally different animal--they're not part of the City of Los Angeles, for one.

--Slightlyslack 07:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wait...Just curious, what crap over where? jengod 18:17, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Nothing 'attempted' about it. L.A. city has a finite number of recognized neighborhoods, all of which have been listed. I don't see the value of grouping them by geography instead of alphabetically by name. I'd encourage you to leave what is there now and perhaps add a new page with L.A. area placenames. It might be handy to have city neighborhoods, cities, and unincorporated areas all on one page. Will McW 01:31, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I seem to remember many missing, and others that were fairly arbitrary. There certainly are distinct districts, like Hermon and Country Club Park, that weren't represented.

Dividing the city into sections would be a way of making it easier for non-Angelenos to grok the city's different areas. An undifferentiated list gives someone who's out of the loop no idea of what's where and what's close to what. While there are certainly differences between neighborhoods in the same region, having Sylmar next to Silver Lake next to one another on a list makes little sense organizationally. --Slightlyslack 01:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I found a list of official neighborhoods here:http://www.lacity.org/bpw/ocs/nmf/communities.html These are the neighborhoods that are not listed in the article (more than I thought). Some are rarely ever referred to, but I guess they are important to the residents. I also see that there is a wiki category 'Category:Los_Angeles_neighborhoods'. Do a geographic listing if you want, but please don't delete the alphabetic listing. (maybe is should just be replaced by a link to the category page?) And to repeat Jengod's question: What crap over where?

Baldwin Village, Beverly Crest, Beverly Glen, Castlemarre, Central City North, Central City, Crenshaw, Cypress Park, Downtown Los Angeles, Harbor Gateway, Harbor City, Hermon, Hyde Park, Jefferson Park, Lake Balboa, Lakeview, Lakeview Terrace, Mid-Wilshire, Mid-City West, Mid-City, Monterey Hills, Mt. Olympus, Park La Brea, Playa Vista, Shadow Hills, Southeast LA, Sunset Junction, Valley Glen, Valley Village, Warner Center, West Alameda, Wilshire Center, Woodland Hills

• I totally support the categorization of neighborhoods by the city's distinct and recognized regions. I don't get the resistance by some for this change as other Wikipedia entries on big cities already break down neighborhood listings by regions. See Portland, Oregon, and New York City.

It would be great if there was a map(maybe even clickable) that identified where the neighborhoods in LA are in the city. When the're just a big list, it's hard to get any feeling for them. As a LA resident, I know that the neighborhoods are one of the most important parts of LA. JesseW 11:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• There is one from this website http://www.losangelesalmanac.com/LA/lamap2.htm. Clickable too!

Due to the size of the main article, some more topics should be split off into separate articles. Some that come to mind are Los_Angeles,_California#Sites_of_interest, Los_Angeles,_California#Notable_natives and Los_Angeles,_California#Culture. Any other suggestions? Willmcw 21:52, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved the "culture" section into its own article, Arts and Culture of Los Angeles, and added to it there. And I moved the "historical population" chart to the "history" article. The wonderfully-detailed "transportation" section seems like another good candidate for spinning off. Willmcw 23:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This does seem like a good idea. Go ahead with your spliting off. JesseW 01:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like to see a reference for this. I never throught of the LA freeway system as a "symbol of dysfunction" and I couldn't find a google reference for this in a cursory search. Anybody what to defend this phrasing? JesseW 05:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wrote that as part of the transportation stub (which is probably too long for a stub anyway). It was intended as a reference to traffic jams and gridlock, which the city, however unfairly, is known for. It is only mentioned to debunk it, so I wouldn't object to cutting it (along with much of that stub). Willmcw 06:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've hacked away at it. I'm not totally sure it's better, but I think it is. Feel free to look it over and cut more. JesseW 08:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I concur with the revision of that phrase.

I don't know about the freeways but I know our public schools and public transportation are paragons of "dysfunction", and by dysfunction I mean crap. --24.126.30.46 02:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I definitely concur, though unfortunately Wikipedia is probably not the right forum to express that sentiment. --Coolcaesar 22:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the Bot attack and subsequent edits have somehow duplicated sections. Can someone do a repair before anyone else comes in and edits? I don't think a simple revert will do it.

I've fixed it. It wasn't the Bot attack; that only messed up one line, and that was fixed by the bot's author. Someone later, at 02:40, 21 Nov 2004 accidentally pasted in the whole article instead of just the section that was being edited. I went back to the previous version, and merged in the two sections that had been changed since then. It should be fixed now. JesseW 08:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whew! Thanks for doing that.

The sources that have given me the impression that the battle of Rio San Gabriel was the decisive battle in which Los Angeles became American comes from http://www.cityofmontebello.com/CITYINFO/HISTORY.HTM , http://www.losangelesalmanac.com/topics/History/hi06.htm , http://www.mta.net/LAUND/yester/lytimeline.htm , and http://www.lospobladores.org/Battle-San-Gabriel.htm and best http://www.gbp.net/mexicanwar/mexwar/messages/12.html

Yes there were many battles after the Battle of Rio San Gabriel but nobody is re-enacting it as they have the Battle of Rio San Gabriel. You can ask steveclugston@yahoo.com Even the MTA recognizes the battle as decisive.

 Here is Mr. Clugston's impression on why importance is not given to the Battle.

"The battle is very important, and for some strange reason, overlooked by historians. Why this is so, is very suspicious in that the battle was the pivotal and largest battle in California history (as far as the number of combatants invoved). After San Gabriel, and the battle the very next day: the "Battle of La Mesa" (many link the two battles as one), California became a U.S. possession ever since. One theory, which makes the most sense: is that Fremont and Senator Benton wanted to slander and minimalize General Kearny & Stockton's victory of the Californios at San Gabriel and focused on his alleged defeat at San Pasqual instead. This was due to the court-martial of Fremont. Kearny died in 1848 and was not around to defend his record, and San Francisco historians supported the writings of Fremont since he was running for state senator and then a presidential candidate, as well as being appointed a Civil War General later. We hope to be able to set the record straight by emphasising the truth about the war in California and hope to be able to report more progress soon. " So please.... I really think it is worth leaving in.. if not, add a mention of La Mesa battle and it will be complete.--Lebite 08:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking that it would be fun to create a separate article on how different people pronounce Los Angeles--everything from the very Spanish pronunciation (Los An-hell-ess), to the vary bizarre sounding (to me) Loze Angle-Leeze (there was one old-time LA TV newscaster who always said it this way and it drove me crazy). I would need help, however, on doing the proper pronunciation markings (IPA?). Any comments? [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 11:45, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it in seperate article, I'd add it to the main article, or maybe Culture of Los Angeles, if there is such an article. Otherwise, it sounds like a great idea. Go to it! JesseW 18:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See also: Arts and culture of Los Angeles

The various pronunciations of "Los Angeles" are an unessential bit of trivia as far as the "City of Los Angeles" article goes, which is the reason that I think that it should be in a separate article. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 06:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it's considered worse to create another whole article on such a small topic than to just add it to the main one, even if it is unnessential. And I would counter that it would be very helpful to at least include the most common loss-an-jel-ess pronunciation. I'll probably be able to add the pronunciation in IPA myself if it hasn't been done yet, although someone else should check it. Theshibboleth 23:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are there others who are bothered by the fact that in this article on the "City of Los Angeles" there is information that really isn't about the city itself but is more about the surrounding region? There are already several other "Los Angeles articles (see Los Angeles (disambiguation)) and the Greater Los Angeles Area article might be a place to put the LA region info into, but my inclination is that instead of doing that there should probably be a separate article created (Los Angeles region?) and the "Los Angeles, California" article should be restricted to only information related to the City of Los Angeles. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 06:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is a problem with no easy answer. The way we handle it for Los Angeles is different than it would be handled for NYC (five boroughs), Budapest (two amalgamated cities), St. Louis, Missouri (a city and dozens of tiny suburbs), or anyplace else. A related problem, as you point out is that there are several Metro LA articles going: Los Angeles County, California, Greater Los Angeles, and Southland, to name three. This came up partly in relation to the history of a battle that was outside the city limits, but affected the history of the area. Another example is the weird Economy section, which mostly says who isn't in the city. It would be more sensible to have an article on the regional economy. But it'll always be hard to draw the line on what should go into the regional versus the city-specific articles. A clear guideline should be attempted. -Willmcw 06:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The one thing that keeps driving me crazy every time that I read it (and I've left it in just so it will bug me enough force me to attempt a major rewrite) is Los Angeles "is well known for its surfing culture." What I've been thinking lately is that most of the subtopics for the LA area are probably big enough that they can support large articles on their own. Then the LA City article can point to each of the subtopics (such as Transportation of Los Angeles) that should cover the entire region and not just the city of LA. There should also probably be a separate article for Los Angeles region that has a condensed version of each article with links to the larger subtopics.

Here are my opinions for the Los Angeles, California article: History: It's a mishmash of facts that doesn't even mention when the San Fernando Valley was annexed, but I'm not sure how to better organize it. Sports: Should just be a mention of the pro sports teams and the Olympics and everything else should probably be in a Sports in Los Angeles article. Media: This should just be a brief mention of the LA Times and Daily News, plus the Business Journal and Daily Journal should get a mention. Everything else (TV stations, Variety(!?), etc) should be en a Media in Los Angeles article. Religion:Everything by Aimee Semple McPherson should probably go into a separate Religion in Los Angeles article, but there should be some brief mention of both the old and new Catholic cathedrals, and perhaps the Azusa Street Revival. Seismic activity: Probably is okay as it is, but an Earthquakes in Los Angeles to cover such topics as building codes and city planning, research, etc. should probably be created. Urban layout: Make it clearer about what parts are about LA--the City and which are about LA--the area. Entertainment companies headquartered near Los Angeles: delete, but create Television production in Los Angeles and Movie production in Los Angeles articles.

Then there are more articles to create: The currently red-linked Economy of Los Angeles. There should probably be an Architecture of Los Angeles and a Tourism in Los Angeles. I'm probably missing a half-dozen more potential aticles, but my imagination just gave out on me. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 12:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Drive culture? Not like New York? Very few subways? Hmm, let's see... beautification? Police? Fire departments? News? Recent events? -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Surfing? Almost all the surfing spots and the areas that are associated with the surfing culture of LA county are outside of the city limits. Skateboarding? I remember the beginning of skateboarding in the early 60's, and nobody who was more than five miles from the ocean knew anything about skateboards, so I doubt that the city of LA had anything to do with skateboards (well, maybe Venice a little). Unless someone can provide some good references, I'd remove the info on both surfing and skateboarding. The grumpy Wikicynic gK ¿? 02:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Venice Beach, aka Dogtown, was and is central to the surfing/skateboarding scene (and we should add rollerblading too), even if there are better waves in a thousand places. More importantly, until it's spun off, this is the 'LA area' section on sports (and it's so short that it hardly seems worthwhile spinning it off). Separate surfing articles to address Zuma, Santa Monica, Redondo Beach, and every little community along the ocean? Why bother? It's all greater L.A. The sports article for L.A. City alone? The Dodgers & the Lakers: boring... -Willmcw 06:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--- See also: Dogtown and Z-Boys.

I stand corrected. The Dogtown info is probably something worth adding to the surfing/skateboarding comments in the main article. gK ¿? 06:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have reason to believe that the population figures listed in this article are grossly underestimated. As far as I can tell, there are roughly 3.2 million people living in *just* the San Fernando Valley area (Los Angeles County) and several million more people living both in the "porper" city of Los Angeles and other parts of the county. If my estimates are correct, this puts the total population of the city, which includes the "proper" city and the county, somewhere in the 16 to 18 million person range, making Los Angeles easily the largest city in the U.S., well ahead of New York. I'm trying to verify my figures before I put them into the article but any help would be appreciated.

--

Actually, the numbers on the page are quite correct. If you define "city" using the strictly legal definition in terms of the municipal corporation and its territory, then Los Angeles has about 3.8 million and New York has 8 million people. But if you define "city" in the broader sense of greater metropolitan area, then Los Angeles has about 16 to 17 million people (including contiguous portions of Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties), and New York has more than 22 million people (if one includes 12 contiguous counties in two other states in addition to the five counties that make up NYC). --Coolcaesar 20:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

--

I consider Los Angeles to include not only the city "proper" (adresses within "Los Angeles") but areas in the outer city (such as those in the San Fernando Valley that DON'T have Los Angeles adresses but ARE part of the city - i.e. Woodland Hills) as well as those that are (in part or in whole) inside of Los Angeles County (which includes areas like Agoura Hills). New York may have more than 22 million people if you include those 12 contiguous counties but if they aren't part of New York City than I don't consider the population of those counties to count. Just as I would not count residents of Orange County in LA's population.

--

Well, first of all, Woodland Hills is part of the city proper, even if the USPS requires it to be addressed separately. And it, along with every other neighborhood in the City of Los Angeles, is already included in the city's total population as measured by the Census. If you had some familiarity with dealing with the American federal government, you would realize that its hundreds of agencies can, and do often engage in maddingly inconsistent policies.

And if you look at the map at http://trafficinfo.lacity.org/, you'll notice that Woodland Hills is clearly inside the City of Los Angeles.

Second, the problem with your methodology is that it completely fails to recognize that the legal structure of counties is completely different on the East Coast (see the U.S. counties article for more explanation). Only in some Midwestern and Western cities is a county usually larger than the primary metro city that it encompasses (e.g., Chicago, Illinois is part of the much larger Cook County).

In contrast, for various historical and legal reasons, the borders of the City of New York are exactly contiguous with five counties (representing the five boroughs); the only city in each of those five counties is a borough of the City of New York. New York State is one of those weird states where cities can span multiple counties.

I suppose using your bizarre, biased, arbitrary, and contorted definition of metropolitan area might produce a higher population for Los Angeles than New York, but it would fail to include many suburban cities that immediately border the City of New York (but lie in other counties) and whose residents would call themselves residents of the New York metro area (just as Agoura Hills residents call themselves residents of the L.A. metro area).

Examples include the cities of Great Neck, Elmont, Yonkers, Mount Vernon, and New Rochelle. If you look at an online street map of the New York area (or own a nationwide street map program like I do), you'd see immediately that the street grid of the New York suburban sprawl runs east on Long Island with no gaps for more than 37 miles, to the city of Medford. It runs northeast to Stamford, Connecticut, west to Parsippany Troy Hills, New Jersey, south to Perth Amboy (or even Trenton, some would argue), and so on. In contrast, there are some gaps in the sprawl between the City of Agoura Hills and Los Angeles; the same goes for Simi Valley and Santa Clarita.

The point is that your methodology would fail to count people in the New York suburbs who strongly consider themselves to be part of the New York area, since they live right next to the City of New York. Your methodology is nearly as silly as not letting people in Simi Valley consider themselves to be part of the L.A. area (most tourists would think they are), just because they live across the boundary in Ventura County.

To further demonstrate how silly your methodology is, consider applying it to the city and county of St. Louis, Missouri. Such a methodology would fail to include cities that most St. Louis residents would consider to be part of the St. Louis metro area, like East St. Louis (which lies across the river in St. Clair County in the state of Illinois).

Or consider Boston, Massachusetts, which lies in Suffolk County. Again, your methodology would deny Cambridge, Massachusetts, the honor of being counted as part of the Boston metro area, just because it lies across the Charles River in Middlesex County. Most Harvard graduates would be horrified at the idea that Harvard isn't part of the greater Boston area.

Well, I think I've made my point. The most consistent methodologies are the ones I've already articulated (and which are used by professional demographers); either one goes with the legal boundaries of the municipal corporation, which are used by the Census; or one can add on all contiguous cities to get a total number for the whole metropolitan area.

--Coolcaesar 05:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

-- First of all, I was unaware of the fact that counties are not treated the same way in the East Coast as they are out here. I won't argue the actual figures anymore because your's are obviously correct, and I was mistaken. BUT there is a distinct difference between "feeling" like you are part of a city and actually BEING part of that city. I grew up in the San Fernando Valley and now live in the Los Angeles County half of Agoura Hills, I am, by most any definition, an "Angelino". But I'm taking classes right now at Moorpark Junior College, which takes it's main pull of students from Simi Valley/Moorpark/Camarillo. Many of those people seem quite content with the fact that they AREN'T part of Los Angeles and are quite happy to remind people as much. They consider it to be a better "cleaner" life where they are and wouldn't want to become part of the city of Los Angeles even if given the chance. Beyond that, they simply aren't residents of Los Angeles or the Greater L.A. area even if they proclaim to be, regardless of what any resident or tourist alike would prefer to believe or tell people. By that logic, San Diego residents may as well start calling themselves Los Angeles residents, since San Deigo doesn't take much longer to get to from my house (about 3 hours) than does LAX (which can take 1 and 1/2 to 2 hours to reach in rush hour traffic).

--You'll see I've moved three of the most extensive lists on this article to their own separate pages. Most major city articles are now moving away from simply being a "list of lists" as the amount and quality of the text on them continues to improve. A perfect example of this is the New York City article, which no longer contains any lists within it at all. --Jleon 14:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looks good and it makes the page much more readable. However, your titles are not in line with Wiki style (run a Google search across the various lists of lists on Wikipedia to see what I mean). I'm moving the articles to the correct titles.

--Coolcaesar 00:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello to Lan56:

I understand you're trying to help, but the two photos you just added to Los Angeles are rather ugly. The problem is that they have poor contrast and they're not properly color balanced (they have a strong bluish tint). You do know how to use Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro, right? I hope you're not color-blind!

I suppose they would be all right if they were the only photos around, but there are already several excellent color balanced photos of Los Angeles in the article. And no, it's not my screen; the photos that were already in the L.A. article show up fine (with R, G and B components correctly balanced) and look beautiful.

--Coolcaesar 23:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They do have a bit of a greenish tone as I shot them from my car. They can go if you feel it is best, there just photos to me. --Lan56 03:50, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with CC. The skyline photo duplicates the main picture, while showing fewer buildings. The tower picture is so unidentifiable as to be a generic building photo. IMO, we have to many pictures of downtown already. BTW, thanks to both of you for your excellent contributions to local articles. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:36, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Someone who knows something about this please look at the recent edit by BAMJ6 and see if it is correct? It seems odd that the %age of whites would change so dramatically without the %age of other races changing. Is this just vandalism by bamj6? --csloat 03:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, when I see changes like that made, I don't waste a lot of time researching them. The editor should have offered a source in the text and an explanation in the edit summary. More generally, some people (OK, many people) get mixed up about the overlap between whites and hispanics. There are white hispanics and non-white hispanics. Anyway, thanks for noticing the change. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:28, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

--The 2000 Census confirms the 46.9% figure. While it may have a changed a few percentage points since then, whoever put that much lower figure must have done something strange like just adding up the European ancestry groups. --Jleon 18:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From "People" section: "Los Angeles hosts the largest populations of Armenians, Cambodians, Filipinos, Guatemalans, Koreans, Thais, Mexicans, and Salvadorans outside of their respective countries." I was under the impression that there are actually more Armenians in L.A. than there are in Armenia. Is this incorrect? --csloat 17:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-That's technically impossible since Armenia has a population of over 3 million people. It might be possible that LA has more Armenians than the Armenian capital, Yerevan which has a population of over one million but not all of whom would call themselves "Armenian." If that was the case, it would make it accurate to say that LA has more Armenians than any other city in the world. --Jleon 17:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is often said that L.A. is the "second largest city" of many nations. In L.A. there is a "little Armenia." However neighboring Glendale is becoming famous as the Armenian center of the area. The statistics are available somewhere if you're interested. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:45, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

FYI, we are losing that great aerial photo of downtown and the mountains (Image:Los_Angeles_skyline_daytime_2.jpg) as it is apparently not in the public domain. The night photo in the article (Image:Lightmatter la at night 001.jpg) is usable, but not distinctively "Los Angeles." So I've uploaded a photo of my own (image:Echo Park Lake Los Angeles skyline.JPG) as a replacement. I admit that it is not nearly so glorious as the aerial photo, and I'm still working on the contrast levels. Any other ideas for a good anchor photo? -Willmcw 22:47, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Not unless someone is willing to rent a helicopter, or can convince on of the local TV or radio stations to take one from their news copters for us. ;-) Someone might be able to get a fairly good photo of downtown from the Boyle Heights area with a good camera and telephoto lens. BlankVerse ∅ 07:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Depending on the atmospheric conditions and the time of day, the view from Mt. Hollywood in Griffith Park might be good too. Or somewhere in Elysian Park. -Willmcw 08:42, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

--That's a shame, I always wondered about that photo because its rare to see a pic so professionally done, and so recently, to be in the public domain. I guess this means it will have to removed from the United States article too. The echo park photo is nice but it really shouldn't be the intro pic. I think we should use the nightime shot in the intro until something better can be found. --Jleon 12:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The nightime photo could be of any city. Perhaps we can scrounge around other PD osurces. -Willmcw 18:07, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

This photo, of Disney Hall, [2], by the same photographer as the night shot of the city, might be interesting. The main photo does not necessarily have to depict the skyline. -Willmcw 20:40, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I thought that cropping the nighttime picture to just downtown might help, but that actually made it worse. Looking at the same photographer at lightmatter, I thought that his Griffith Observatory picture with downtown LA in the background was interesting (see ([3] or Image:Lightmatter griffith observatory.jpg) and could be used for Griffith Park or Los Angeles as well as the Observatory. Q1:He is using a Creative Commons license, which I thought was incompatible with GFDL? Q2:He is a very good photographer, although his examples on the lightmatter website are more artistic than informative, so that makes them less useful for use on the Wikipedia. I wonder if he would take any requests for photographs? BlankVerse ∅ 01:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Just to raise the stakes: the non-PD aerial photo is used as the L.A. photo is about 8 articles, such as Southern California. Ideally we'll find or create a photo which can fill all of those soon-to-be holes. How about a photo contest? -Willmcw 06:29, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

That Image:Lightmatter griffith observatory.jpg looks pretty good. Too bad that the Observatory is under construction. I vote for it until we get a better one. Should we check more on the licensing issue? I just lent my camera for a while, so I can't help. That photo was obviously shot from somewhere on the southwestern slopes of Griffith Park. A similar shot with a wider angle lens would show the observatory and the whole skyline. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:20, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Can any of these can help? [4]. The disclaimer reads "All images are believed to be in the public domain" that "believed" part is a kinda iffy to me, but im sure they are PD. Problem is, they are not that great of quality, and the only good ones are too wide for use here. -- AlexTheMartian | Talk 08:38, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

FYI, http://www.pdphoto.org/index.php is a site with many public domain pictures of L.A. and elsewhere that are good. I don't see anything that is better than the Griffith Observatory picture we now are using, but they are totally PD. In fact, there is a special copyright tag just for them: {PD-PDphoto.org}. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:27, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think that any photos of the skyline from the Mulholland lookout spot over the Hollywood Bowl, Griffith Observatory, or from certain spots at University of Southern California (for example, this shot) are not good because of the lack of visible buildings, especially from Mulholland (like this one). It makes it look embarresingly small. I think the best shot would be one like what KABC7 shows sometimes in the afternoon with Dallas Reines where they show a shot from the Santa Monica Mountains over Malibu and the skyline of Century City and downtown are viewable and both skylines are very busy looking. From Baldwin Hills is a good area too. Unfortunately, I have no sources for such images :( --Lan56 01:59, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

That Olvera Street Picture is tiny. Can someone zoom it up?

--Lan56, I actually think that Mulholland photo is pretty good. It's very similar to many "skyline" photos of Tokyo in that it shows the sprawling, decentralized nature of the city. A closeup of Downtown wouldn't be that great because of the abscence of many widely recognizable buildings there. --Jleon 18:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

For future reference, everyone, I have just found out the source of that great aerial photo which is no longer on the page (since it was eliminated as a possible copyvio). While walking through the Tom Bradley International Terminal at LAX yesterday, I saw our familiar photo in a series of photos on the wall (in the corridor used by arriving travelers after they exit U.S. Customs). The copyright line in the lower left corner (which was unhelpfully omitted by whomever uploaded that photo) is "Copyright Erik Arnessen Photography/LACVB" (which stands for Los Angeles Convention and Visitors Bureau).

Basically, the photo can never be published on Wikipedia unless someone bothers to write to this Mr. Arnessen fellow and LACVB, gets an signed express release or permissions letter, and then scans that and uploads that to Wikipedia. I doubt Arnessen will be willing to do a release for free, since creating such a beautiful professionally shot photo must have taken a great deal of time and preparation. --Coolcaesar 16:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Or is he the mayor-elect? When is he sworn in? The sidebar lists him as mayor, but as far as I know, he only just won the election. Velvetsmog 01:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Correct. -Willmcw 01:24, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

In response to the intro aerial shot's copyright issues, I think a great shot would be one like this. The skyline of Century City and downtown are shown and both look busy. Only problem is that it is copyrighted :( but its an idea --Lan56 00:59, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Does this article really need the long list on recently built residential towers, especially since it doesn't list any of the older, larger commercial skyscrapers? It looks like, to me, that some real estate agents have been "spamming" the page. It would be better to a separate article that covers ALL of the highrises in the LA area. If nobody objects, I am going to remove the list in the next day or two. BlankVerse ∅ 08:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please do. Thanks-Willmcw 18:10, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the skyline section should be relocated to a separate article. Most readers of this article are probably not interested in such a detailed analysis, unless they are professional engineers or urban planners. It would be better to mention briefly that Los Angeles has a unique skyline or something like that, and then link to a more detailed article. --Coolcaesar 18:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, perhaps it would be OK in a separate article, but I have to say that I found it interesting, even though I'm not a professional engineer or an urban planner. Perhaps the list can be pared down, but the general idea (which is that L.A.'s skyline isn't one unified thing, but rather several clusters of high-rises spread throughout the whole city) was an interesting observation that I hadn't really thought about even though I have been to L.A. hundreds of times. cluth 02:30, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

The information on the Los Angeles skyline should definately be kept, and probably even expanded (more info on the development of the downtown commercial highrises, for example). It is only the list of recently built residential buidings that I was objecting to. BlankVerse ∅ 04:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note that one of the buildings on the list is outside of the city, in Marina del Rey. [shrug]. -Willmcw 09:22, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no real estate agents spammed it. I added that list. I am a skyscraper freak and keep track of that stuff, so I thought I might as well add it, not only for other freaks, but also because the office tower boom of the '80s died in the early '90s and until just in the early 2000's did skyscrapers start to be the trend again, so I feel that nation/worldwide people may have thought that LA wasn't interested in furthering its skyline, so examples would have been great. Anyway, I can see how it is weak to only list recent ones, but as for a complete list, that can be tricky. Emporis[5] lists 495 skyscrapers as of 10 June 2005. The list grows rather frequently (maybe every month or sometimes shorter), so to list every one would be too static to be good. I feel if such a list is created, the tallest 10 or 20 or something should be listed. We could spread to other categories, but I can't think of any as of writing. Those skyscrapers that were listed were mostly under construction or planned. I think only one or two were actually completed. Moreover, it was an incomplete list. All in all, I think we must keep the skyline section, but it doesn't matter to me where nor does it matter to me if the list is kept. They were just some goodies I threw in I guess :) --Lan56 04:36, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

For this LA article, I don't think there really need to be much. Some historical info on the fact that it used to be the law that nothing could be taller than the Los Angeles City Hall building. Then a list of the different pockets of highrises, and another list of the top 5-10 tallest buildings. Then you could add a couple of interesting small details such as highrise fires, building sales or bankruptcies, etc. There is also probably more than enough info for a separate article on the LA skyline. BlankVerse ∅ 11:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For whenever a Skyline of Los Angeles article is created (or better yet, an Architecture of Los Angeles or maybe City planning in Los Angeles article is created), I've found a list of the 327 largest buildings in the LA area here. BlankVerse ∅ 12:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

see http://www.losangelesalmanac.com/LA/la10b.htm

According to Professor Vyacheslav Ivanov of UCLA, there are at least 224 identified languages in Los Angeles County. This does not include differing dialects. Professor Ivanov estimates that publications are locally produced in about 180 of these languages. Only 92 languages have been specifically identified among students of the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Those statistics are for the county, but I would imagine that there is little difference between the county and city for this particular statistic. BlankVerse ∅ 10:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of nice LA photos in the Commons, including one that is a Feature Photo: Nighttime view of Downtown L.A. and the Hollywood Freeway Image:LosAngeles04.jpg. The rest of the photos can be found at this link commons:Los_Angeles. BlankVerse ∅ 14:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the original Spanish name and its translation:

El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de la Porciúncula, "The Town of Our Lady Queen of the Angels of the Small Portion".

It appears that "del río" got forgotten (even though different web sources vary on this). Also, "pueblo" translates to "village".

Do you mean that "del rio" was to be included in the above translation, or that the translation is the same but the Spanish version should have "del rio"? As you may know, "del rio" means "of the river" or "from the river", therefore I don't see it fitting in with the above name. --Lan56 18:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Note that there is a fuller version of the naming story in History of Los Angeles, California. -Willmcw 20:31, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there is some debate about what the "original" name of Los Angeles was. There was an article about that in the LA Times roughly a month ago which talked about a recently released book on the subject. BlankVerse ∅ 12:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I found a short version of the LA Times article. Theshibboleth 23:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Acto the official page of the City of Los Angeles, the "de la Porciúncula" part was never a part of the name of the city, only of the river. I think we are perpetuation misinformation here, and need to discuss it further. --User:bgoldnyxnet

Mmanning 06:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Mmanning: According to what I have learned from members at the office of the El Pueblo Park, the original name was:

"El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora La Reina de Los Angeles sobre El Rio Porciúncula," which translates "...on the Porciuncula River."

From what I understand, the original Porciuncula River is in Spain, and the name itself is Italian. Gen. Portola named this river he found (the Los Angeles River) in its honor, and had left specific instructions for where this new Pueblo was to be situated, mostly for the access to the river's water. This was all part of a master plan on behalf of the King of Spain to gentrify Alta California, and downplay the role of the missions as the New World commercial centers. Of course the mission padres ignored the idea of being downplayed and began to compete against the new pueblos. So the idea in another part of this article that the settlers of Pueblo de Los Angeles came from the San Gabriel Mission is sorely misdirected. Remember, shortly after the revolution, the missions were secularized in order to break up the competition, plus the fact that the padres would maintain allegiance to the Church of Spain.

The original 22 families to settle the Pueblo were sent up from Monterey Mexico, and were a cross-section of the Mexican population from Spanish to Mulato to Negro. The residents at the mission were Native American Gabrielenos and the padres.

A lot more can be said about Olvera Street which is the outline of the original Pueblo. More can be said about the Avila Adobe which has a historical tale second to no other building in Los Angeles.

I invite any remarks to this. Thank you. User:Mmanning

Please vote on my proposal at the city naming conventions, which, if approved, would move this page to just Los Angeles. Dralwik 30 June 2005 22:33 (UTC)

Oh no, not again. —Morven July 1, 2005 22:37 (UTC)

I think LA should be listed by itself without the California part. For one thing, LA is commonly considered a world city and it may be argued that it transcends geopolitical boundaries. For another, Greater LA is the eighth largest metropolitan area in the world. Additionally, other major cities such as London, Paris, and New York City do not specifiy larger subdivisions such as states or countries. Theshibboleth 23:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind that Los Angeles redirects to Los Angeles, California, but I think that it is highly wrong to have the CITY of Los Angeles at Los Angeles. As the Los Angeles (disambiguation) page clearly shows, Los Angeles is a city, a county, a geographical feature (Los Angeles Basin), a region with ill-defined boundaries, an airport, etc. The city of Los Angeles absolutely should not be at Los Angeles. BlankVerse ∅ 08:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

But isn't the city of Los Angeles at Los Angeles anyway? At least, when you click on that link you end up at the article on the city of Los Angeles. I think my problem with the way it is now is that it makes LA seem less important than it is. Theshibboleth 09:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This article at Los Angeles, California is already bad enough as it it is because it really isn't just about the City of Los Angeles. Instead, various sections conflate and confuse all the various Los Angeles entities without making it clear which "Los Angeles" they are talking about. If the article was moved to Los Angeles, that problem would only get much, much worse. I have been thinking that the "solution" would be to turn the Los Angeles page into something like a very expanded disambiguation page, discussing all the various meanings of "Los Angeles". At the same time, the Los Angeles, California page needs some heavy copy-editing so that the page ONLY covers the City of Los Angeles (and makes it very clear in the into that is all that it covers). BlankVerse ∅ 10:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't very much like the idea of setting the page up as a large disambiguation page--most people looking up Los Angeles probably are trying to find information on the city. I think that even if the article doesn't stick exclusively to information on the city of Los Angeles, it does discuss information that is very relevant to the city. In fact, because any article on Greater Los Angeles will obviously include the city, having the article be about areas included in the cultural bounds of Los Angeles (as the article already does) might be the best option. The political boundaries could be discussed in their own section but not given priority status. I would contend that someone looking up Los Angeles would be more interested in the area in general than the peculiarities of its political boundaries.

That said, the article is rather large and perhaps ought to be broken up some. I suppose the article could begin being reformed that way, and more controversial topics (such as renaming) can be dealt with later. It seems to me though that most big cities have lots of other things named after them and the differences between the metropolitan area and the city proper can become rather blurred, but this does not mean that the article's title should go against the conventions for other important cities. Perhaps this issue and others should be discussed in the So. Cal. Project page. Theshibboleth 12:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that most of the people who enter Los Angeles into the search field are probably more interested in the Greater Los Angeles region. They probably don't know, and don't even care, what is within the city limits for the City of Los Angeles, and what is not. For example, I'm sure that most people outside of California probably think that Hollywood is a distinct city and not just a district of LA, and most probably don't know that most of the San Fernando Valley is also part of LA. On the other hand, many of the same people probably think that Santa Monica is part of LA, just like Venice. Most people outside of California probably the Great Western Forum where the Lakers played was in Los Angeles. and they probably think that East Los Angeles is also part of the City. Most probably don't know that San Pedro has been a separate city since 1909.

My personal opinion is that the LA, California article should ONLY be about what is within the city limits, and everything else should go in to other articles—either some sort of Greater LA article, or into topic area overviews (Economy of Greater LA, Sports teams of Greater LA, etc.). BlankVerse ∅ 10:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I personally think that this article should be at 'Los Angeles' with 'Los Angeles, California' being a redirect. I'm not sure I understand how the problem of the content of the page being ambiguous with whether it means the actual city of LA at some points and the Greater LA area at others would be either solved or exasperated by making this name change. I agree with the posters that say that it should be disambiguated in some way, but I honestly think that as a World City it shouldn't have the California listed as part of its name (as it is recognizable by only its name without State or Country added to it). My nomenclature for this setup would be something like:

• Los Angeles: Greater LA area main page, essentially what is now at Los Angeles, California.
• City of Los Angeles: The page devoted to information specific to the city of LA only (linked to from 'Los Angeles' article). I think that this information should be in a separate article from the 'Los Angeles' page (as opposed to the 'Greater LA area' info) because the actual political-boundary defined city of Los Angeles is almost never what people mean when they talk about, write about or search for the term 'Los Angeles' (this mainly applies to people who do not live IN the Greater LA area, but also somewhat applies to LA area residents as well). It's true that this is based on anecdoctal experience, but as a native of the city of LA, I have never once come across a counter-example to this rule among the hundreds of people that I've met and at least casually introduced myself to.
• Los Angeles, California: Redirect to...tough call, but if I had to make it, it would be to 'Los Angeles,' not 'City of Los Angeles.' See above for why.
• Greater Los Angeles Metro: redirect to 'Los Angeles'.

(of course with the proper disambiguation pages still in place)

Sorry for the length. That's my two cents (more like 5 dollars). By the way, I'm just getting into this "wiki" stuff, heh. Mostly punctuation corrections and graffiti removal on WP so far.

Oh, and as an interesting tidbit of information, the first recorded use of the word Angeleno used to mean a native or resident of Los Angeles was (according to the Oxford English Dictionary) in 1888. And I always thought that it was a word that was made up by LA newscasters. Haha. --MasterCKO 08:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

There are also some reports that 95 percent of all outstanding homicide warrants and 60 percent of outstanding felony warrants in the city are for illegal aliens[6][7]

• This bit of text came and went before, now it's back. Both links go to the same article, so "some reports" is one report. And that reference gives no indication of her source, saying, "Good luck finding any reference to such facts in official crime analysis." All in all, it seems like a factoid or urban legend with no factual support. Until we can find either official crime analysis or another named source, I think that we should remove this. Any other thoughts? -Willmcw 21:36, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • When in doubt, refer to Cite sources. If there are no reliable sources for the article, delete. The City Journal pretends to be a scholarly urban policy magazine, but if they aren't going to provide footnotes, the article is useless. BlankVerse ∅ 01:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Los Angeles has one of the largest freeway networks among large cities of the U.S. They're really amazing, especially in the Downtown L.A. and Boyle Heights areas. I've noticed that the drivers on the L.A. interstates are really fast speeders, and whenever there is one-fourth mile gap between cars, the driver at the front speeds up immediately to "catch up" (this phenomenon doesn't happen often in other places in California like Northern California and the Central Valley). Around the Downtown L.A. interstate exchanges, getting onto another freeway can be quite a hectic situation. The lanes suddenly divides into something like "right lane Interstate XX only", and you MUST quickly switch lanes or you'll go the wrong way. But switching lanes is often difficult because the drivers are very aggresive speeders and won't let you pass them. The Downtown L.A. exchanges are really confusing and could get quite scary.

Besides, is there any section in this article or an article where I can get this information to, or is this info unencyclpedic? — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe the best place to add such information would be the Transportation of Los Angeles article. That information is too "road geek" specific to add to the main article; the main article is too long and rambles enough as is.

However, I am not sure that it should be added to any article because it may fail the notability and provability policies that Wikipedia has (information has to be notable and if subjective or easily disputed, one should cite sources). But if you can find at least two or three solid published sources to backup those assertions (I vaguely recall that some of the L.A. Times columnists did often complain in the mid-1990s about the problems you mention), then I think no one would contest their addition to the Transportation of Los Angeles article. --Coolcaesar 16:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This article seems to be over 500kb, including the photos. This is one of the largest pages on my watchlist, and it must be excruciating for anyone on dial-up. Most of that size is due to the pictures. Can we remove or shrink some of them? Maybe the universities, Olvera street, some of the shots of flat expanses? Shrinking the pictures reduces the page size, but at some point they become insignificant postage stamps. Maybe the link to WikiCommons photos of L.A. could be made more prominent. Any thoughts? -Willmcw 06:41, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently on a dial-up Internet link, and the display time of the L.A. article is still fine. Also, as you noted, the problem with shrinking photos is that you end up with a lot of funny-looking postage stamps (for example, see the Cerritos, California article). --Coolcaesar 13:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, if it doesn't bother a dial-up user thenI suppose it's OK. I might still go ahead and drop a few photos. The universities look generically collegiate, for example, and the Olvera St, pic, which I added is just too small to bother with. -Willmcw 20:06, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

With a bit of reformatting, and moving some info to other linked pages, the article size is now down to 48 Kb. Dr. Cash 00:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Just moved the Geography section a bit upwards in the list and added info about the climate. There was a link to a "main article: Geography of Los Angeles", which really doesn't have any new information. So I cleaned out the old "main article" and marked it for speedy deletion. Dr. Cash 16:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

That didn't meet the criteria for a speedy delete, so someone turned it into a redirect to this article. It would probably be much better to move most of the geography material to a Geography of Los Angeles article, and only have a brief summary in this article. BlankVerse ∅ 11:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. That's probably a better solution than just deleting the old article. I still don't think that the Geography section really needs a separate article. Basic info like Geography, climate, Demographics, are things that should be in the main article. I've cleaned up a few more sections, and moved the skyline and city layout (main sections) to other articles; mainly the Central Los Angeles and Greater Los Angeles Area articles. Plus, there's actually quite a few See also links under the Geography section as it is already, and that's starting to look a bit cluttered. Perhaps some of these see also links should be consolidated instead? Dr. Cash 00:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the infobox a bit, went with a different format that's already being used for several other city sites (Washington, D.C., Louisville, Kentucky, Richmond, Virginia, among others). The main difference is that now, the skyline picture is contained within the infobox, which makes it look a bit better. I also removed the elected representatives and moved them to a separate List of elected officials in Los Angeles article, linked to from the government section. Few cities, if any, include anything more than the mayor in the infobox. Dr. Cash 00:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that it looks really bad when the picture is in the infobox. Almost every city infobox does not do this, and it just looks ugly. It looks a lot better when it is in a separate box. --Hottentot

I believe quite the opposite. It looks seriously unprofessional to have an image at the top, with the first (main) paragraph flowing between the top image and the infobox. The infobox as it is should be at the top of each city page, and with the separated image as it is, that is not the case; some city pages have an infobox well below due to text-wrapping, meaning you have to scroll way down just to see the initial information. That's a poor standard. It also doesn't make sense to have a "Los Angeles, California" header on top of the infobox that is not on top of the page. Of course, just because, "almost every city infobox does not do this," is not a valid reason to not to do it slightly differently. I'd like to hear more opinion on this matter. Dr. Cash 13:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe we should have some kind of vote than. --Hottentot

There seems to be two versions of the infobox going around, and not to start an edit war about it, we should have a survey to gauge consensus.

The two versions are as follows; please review each by clicking on the historical links:

• Option 1 - This is the older option and matches the way that many current city articles on the Wikipedia are formatted. It's a bit fragmented, as the skyline image is on the top-right, separated by some paragraph text between it and the actual infobox, which comes later down the page. The heading, Los Angeles, California appears directly above the infobox, but after the image and the opening text.
• Option 2 - This is the newer one. The skyline image is included inside the infobox, eliminating the paragraph flow between the opening skyline pic and the infobox. The heading, Los Angeles, California appears at the top-right of the page.

---

• Support Option 2: I think option 2 looks a lot cleaner, more professional, and provides the pertinent information right up at the beginning of the page, when it is called up. Option 1 just looks cluttered and too disorganized; definitely not like something you would expect to see in an encyclopedia. Also, the image width and infobox width don't even match up?!?! Dr. Cash 01:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Additional Note: Not every city infobox is configured for option #1. Several notable city articles used option 2 (or similar variants), including Chicago, Illinois, Louisville, Kentucky, Washington, D.C., and Phoenix, Arizona, among many others. Dr. Cash 01:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Support Option 1: I think that the picture should be in a separate frame and not part of the infobox because in my opinion, it looks really ugly. We've had it like this for years I think, so why change it now? --Hottentot
• Support Option 2: same as what Dr.Cash said --Lan56 03:46, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Support the slightly skinnier Option 2: With the intro photo within the infobox, it's a much cleaner design. I shrunk down that image from 300px to 250px (matching the width of the map) so that the infobox now only takes up slightly less than half of the available width at 800x600 (using Firefox and the MonoBook skin) instead of around 60% of the width. BlankVerse ∅ 12:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support Option 2: Much cleaner appearance. (SEWilco 14:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC))
• Support Option 2: It's just looks better and more organized. Just because it's been one way for X many years doesn't mean that it shouldn't be changed now. MasterCKO 03:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No, not Wikipedia plagarizing a different source, but....ANOTHER webpage lifting whole sections of Wikipedia's Los Angeles article (and probably others, too)

http://www.answers.com/topic/los-angeles-california

Now, I know that Wikipedia is "open source" but this seems a bit much, no? Check out the section on "Demographics" on that webpage, it is the Wiki page, verbatim.

Sirimiri 05:37, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence, but it's ok. Answers.com is a legitimate mirror site. Anyone can copy the entire site so long as they honor the GFDL by maintaining authorship info. -Willmcw 06:06, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. The more I look into it, the more it is...well, GFDL. But, at first glance, I saw a site which has ads ($$revenue$$) and blew a gasket for a sec. Thanks for the reply. --Sirimiri 04:01, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Answers.com is one of the biggest mirrors for the Wikipedia and appears to do a very good job of following the GFDL. There are, unfortunately, some mirrors that do contravene the requirements of the GFDL. Somewhere in the Wikipedia namespace there is a place to report those websites. Most of them eventually come around, but if they don't they will get a letter from Foundation lawyers. BlankVerse ∅ 15:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Los Angeles/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

As this is the Los Angeles WikiProject it is only natural that it would recieve the top rating, but that is not to say it does'nt need any work, it needs some polishing, but it still recieves top honours from the Project team. (♠Taifarious1♠) 01:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)