Talk:Los Angeles, California/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

temperatures

Please, Farenhait-Celsius conversion is to be revised. With an average maximum temperature of 0ºC in January, it more likely to be Helsinki than LA Xareu bs 15:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No wonder it was feeling so cold around here. I've turned up the thermostat on the Celsius temperature averages. Can someone else do the precipitation conversions? Cheers, -Will Beback 22:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

This article is good enough overall, but it reads like a travel brochure. Where's the neutral point of view? Every other word is some sort of subjective superlative throughout much of the article. Agateller 08:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Article Images

How come the Staples Center image was removed? Important sporting and other events always happen there, it should be in the article, and if images are removed at least explain why in the talk page. --Dynamax 07:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed it. It was a copyrighted image. If you want an image of the Staples Center in the Los Angeles article, there is another one in the Staples Center article that was taken by one of our Wikipedia editors. BlankVerse ∅ 16:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I didn't track who had changed that first image to the night version one; I didn't suspect, however, that the night version image was copyrighted. Its up to you guys to put it back, no worries for me. --Dynamax 17:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Since the article on the Staples Center has a photo, maybe we don't need one here too. This article has lots of photos already. -Willmcw 17:54, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
I think you guys should take a quick look at Houston, they have some impressive images :) --Dynamax 19:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

On another note, why are there two images in the infobox at the top? I would think one image is enough up there, as two makes it look a little too busy. I would suggest moving one of the images to another point later in the article. Dr. Cash 04:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

In the "Districts and Communities" section, there's a photo of the "Sunset Strip." That section of Sunset Blvd. is not in the city of Los Angeles but in fact in the city of West Hollywood.

Speaking of pictures, where are all these pictures with the clear sky coming from? I've been to L.A., and the sky is not blue there, it's either brown or grey.

No, it's blue on many days in the spring after the rain washes all the particulate pollution out of the sky. Most of the pictures that end up on postcards and in tourist literature are taken around that time. But you are correct that most of the year the sky is either brown or gray. --Coolcaesar 20:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Power Outage, Sept 12th 2005

Where do we put the info on it? Is there like a new page... or... -- NatsukiGirl\talk 22:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep, new page 2005 Los Angeles power outage

Demographic section too big?

Do we really need to how many married couples there are in the city? This may have been because of the census bot, but I'm gonna pare it down. And the real estate section just seem unnecessary to me especially the discussion on house construction materials. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Infernalfox (talk • contribs) 01:55, 27 September 2005.

I strongly disagree. The stated sections are accurate and give a better impression of the city. A person may ask, "Is this city full of nice houses?" One may ask, "Are most people married?" Such parts of the demographics section are very contributive to the section and are no less important than race or income. --Lan56 05:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


If the information is not kept in the LA article, it should at least be moved to a new article on LA demographics, rather than just deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 07:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I think moving the more thorough demographic section to another article would be a good idea. The old demographic section was data diarrhea, it was unreadable. I looked at other big-city articles sections on demographics, and they could all use paragraphs and punctuations. I may have been wrong to question the relevanceof the information, but should actually have been pointing out how to organize the section better and that may entail deletion of some parts.
Also, we can't possibly answer every question about Los Angeles, especially whether we have nice houses which in itself is a subjective criteria and not duplicated in any other large-city articles in Wikipedia. I really wouldn't have mind it at all if the real estate section was there, but the article was approaching 55K as Wikipedia warned.
Infernalfox 07:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
There is value in having the same set of statistics for every city in the U.S. One recent section cut from demographics was how many native born and foreign born residents the city has. That seems like interesting information. I don't object to spinning it off into a separate article if need be. -Willmcw 14:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The article wasn't too long, but it does properly mention the largest ethnic group in Los Angeles is Hispanic. The U.S. Census has never ruled out the actual percentage of Latinos in Los Angeles city and county, due to immigration and political pressure. The I.N.S. said a majority of the city's estimated 800,000 undocumented aliens remain uncounted. I don't see a need to further edit the demographics, but here's some info. you may add.

It's worth to note Los Angeles has a long Mexican American history, though most of them came in the 20th century. Dating back to the 1850's when the city was acquired in the Mexican war, a small community of Spanish and Mexican people had a section in the historic Pueblo de Los Angeles. From 1900 to 1930 from high demand for factory labor, over a million Mexicans arrived into the Los Angeles region, most settled in the city's eastern ends.

After a slowdown period (1930-1959), the 1960 census reported 550,000 of 2.2 million Angelenos are of Mexican descent, the U.S.' largest Mexican community before there was media publicity on this ethnic group in the city's life. Immigration has greatly impacted Los Angeles since the 1970s fueled by the economy dependent of an abundant service work force, and the area's Hispanic population quadrupled ever since to a current 2 million or half the city's residents, not solely Mexican but from all over Latin America.

The pattern of "white" and now "black" flight from Southern parts of Los Angeles to have predominantly Mexican, Central American and other Latino areas. Anyone can drive on Pico Blvd./Westlake, and Alameda St. near Union station or the Staples center, and find themselves in a smaller replica of Mexico, Immigration gave a renewed vibrant community in an "inner city" doomed 20 or 30 yrs. ago to get vacated or was full of unemployment.

I guess for more info on Los Angeles' Latin side, you may check out wikipedia articles on Latino, Mexican American and immigration. But it's a touchy subject in Los Angeles (and California) to discuss Hispanics/Latinos as a racial group, the dilemma on legal or illegal immigration, their socio-economic levels, cultural preservation, and how essential they are to Los Angeles that some bigoted prejudices refuse to admit until now.

The city's mayor Anthony Villaraigosa, the Mexican and Hispanic markets on Broadway, and the Centro de La Raza park along Cesar Chavez Blvd. indicate who's becoming a majority in L.A. I don't oppose nor promote immigration and Hispanic civil rights, but get to know L.A. and you learn it is America's largest Spanish-speaking city (except for Miami, depends on who you ask) that was built in part by Mexicans. --Mike D 26 18:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Identification of places

Could somebody identify the sculpture at Image:Los Angeles downtown p1000165.jpg? More generally, feel free to give descriptions and captions to images on commons:Los Angeles. Thanks. David.Monniaux 10:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de la Porciúncula

For a previous discussion, see #Original name above. Thanks, -Willmcw 07:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Demographics

I've retored a section of demographoc info. It may not be tht critical, but every one horse dorp in the US has the same data, in roughlt the same layout (I was looking for the poverty section) , so it seems crazy not to have it for LA. I've also seperated the standard census data, which is of a known provenance for the rest. If some of the items I've put seprately actully come from the census they should, of ocurse be moved into tht section. If not, a source or at least date would be useful. Rich Farmbrough 10:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added a brief discussion about population density because the "gross" density is deceptively low. L.A., at least south of the Hollywood Hills, has some of the most densely-populated urban land in the U.S. [[User:Ldemery] [[User talk:Ldemery] 15:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Does this section (under the heading Census 2000) not make sense to anyone else?

"The racial makeup of the city was 46.93% White, 11.24% African American, 0.80% Native American, 15.89% Asian, 0.16% Pacific Islander, 25.70% from other races, and 5.18% from two or more races. 46.53% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race and 29.75% were White, not of Latino/Hispanic origins." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joontree (talk • contribs) .

The figures are correct. They add up to over 100 percent because "Hispanic" is not a race or a racial group. A Hispanic person can be of any race—they can be white, black, Asian, etc. —RJN 23:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The lack of poverty or socio-economic segments on the article is simply a mistake, not censorship or being "P.C.". About how many poor live in L.A. is available on the article: The percentage of individuals/households in income brackets and the lowest level is included. I think 18% is an understatement, since Los Angeles has a poverty issue in South central sections, home to over 1.5 million of the city residents. South central has a disproportionate poor majority (or a misnomer?) then the recent improvements in the standards of living since the L.A. riots (1992) brought new companies and employers into the impoverished area. This isn't possible for a "majority" of south Central residents to be officially poor, but are middle-class or blue-collar levels. 18% out of 3.8 million comes out at 700,000 and the highest concentration of low-income families or persons is on the western end of Downtown, although the "gentrification" process in the last decade may changed all that either. We all know by now by the movies, music, TV shows and pop culture the large number of rich and upper-income brackets in the city, then L.A. appears more middle-class and earn less than $100,000 a year. You have to drive "west" to Fairfax, Westwood, Century City, Rancho la Brea, Brentwood, Bel Air, Pacific palisades and Venice/Mar Plata to find the wealthy who have over a million or billion a year. Don't really call it a POV since I look up this stuff and have traveled across Los Angeles area, so these are closely hard facts. --Mike D 26 19:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Iranians and other Persian-speakers in Los Angeles

This article does not mention the large Persian-speaking (Iranian, Afghanistani, etc) community in LA. According to certain sources, there are at least 200,000 Persian-speakers in LA, and up to estimated 400,000 in the rest of California. Among Iranians in the US and Europe, LA is also known as "Tehrangeles". The city city has the largest concentration of Persian-speakers outside of Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.171.60.11 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for the comment and the sources. Actually, the article does mention it briefly. Los Angeles, California#Other demographics. Los Angeles is a special place for many language groups. -Willmcw 06:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
There is also an article on Tehrangeles, as well as Little Persia, Los Angeles, California. If you know more about these issues, both articles do need more detail and we would appreciate your help. BlankVerse 16:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. Was the Iranian community situated in Beverly Hills? or in Reseda in the san Fernando valley? Please explain where's Little Persia?

I wanted to extend the demographics list to include Native American groups in the city, but number in the hundreds and will take up time and space. I can't limit it down to the city's large Cherokee community or the number of BIA relocatees from the Southwest states in L.A. came by the tens of thousands. I knew Los Angeles has the largest Laotian and Cambodian communities in the U.S. and back in the 1980's, the Westlake section was a main residence for Southeast Asians after their first arrival in the U.S. If we wanted to expand the demographics list, just keep it brief and compile the sources. --Mike D 26 19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Silly redirect

Why is Los Angeles a redirect to Los Angeles, California when that's the primary meaning? American cities are the only ones with those kinds of redirects; on Sydney or Bath, it's "For other uses, see PAGE (disambiguation)." Answar 23:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

There have been several huge arguments over this. The most recent one was in July/August 2005 and the consensus was to keep the current naming system for U.S. city articles. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names).
Also, Americans often identify their city by saying both city and state because such a ridiculously high number of city names have been reused throughout American history. For example, there are large cities named Portland in both Oregon and Maine, and famous suburbs named Menlo Park in both New Jersey and California. --Coolcaesar 02:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Everything Coolcaesar says is true. Another issue is consistency. It's a whole lot easier for editors if we can count on a consistent format for naming. If we have to check each article to see how it is named, or decide on a case-by-case basis which cities are prominent enough to omit the state then it would cause us to waste a lot of time. This is fair, pracitical, and logical. -Willmcw 21:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
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, a seaport, etc. which are all often referred to as "Los Angeles" without any qualifiers. Add to that list the several other "Los Angeles"s that are not on the list, such as the fact that it is a Designated Market Area (for television stations). Then there are the things that usually take qualifiers, such as the Los Angeles River. It is bad enough that the Los Angeles, California article conflates all of those different versions of Los Angeles, rather than being strongly focused on just the city of Los Angeles. In my opinion, the city of Los Angeles absolutely should not be at Los Angeles. BlankVerse 22:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Los Angeles has many many possible meanings, but, if you mention Los Angeles to most people in the English-speaking world, I believe (without having any way of knowing) that the first thing that will come to mind, more often than not, is the "City of Los Angeles" or "Los Angeles" or "LA". I can think of no other term that could possibly supplant that primacy. When people speak of Miami, they immediately think of the "City of Miami" not Miami Shores, North Miami, or the University of Miami (Ohio), etc. etc. In any pot that is stewing with multiple place names, one always bubbles to the top, and in this case I think Los Angeles, as such, without qualification, is one. --Sirimiri 05:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that most people outside of Southern California don't know, and don't care, what is within the city limits and what is not. Most people probably think that Hollywood is a separate city, and probably don't know that most of the San Fernando Valley is part of the City of Los Angeles. They may think that both Venice and Santa Monica are cities, or they may think that they are both part of LA. In most cases, I think that when non-Southern California people think of "Los Angeles", they are imagining some mythic Los Angeles that mixes all the different LAs that we've already discussed, along with all the images that they've seen on TV and in the movies, along with all the bias, misconceptions, and misinformation that have been spread about LA. It is a region with no set boundary. They may "think" that they are thinking about the city of LA, but it does not necessarily have anything to do with the reality of the city of LA. BlankVerse 16:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The various arguments behind this rule of using city, state for every city in the US seem to me to be all flawed.

  • Everyone knows the location of the article - There are currently about 30 pages that link to Los Angeles, CA, 50-100 that link to Los Angeles and one to Los angeles, california (about to be deleted).
  • Prevents arguments over what goes at the city name - It does but this argument simply gets shifted to where that article should redirect to. This one redirects to the city because thats what people expect. If there was any real confusion/controversy over what Los Angeles really refers to then it would redirect to a disambig article.
  • There should be one convention for every US city - A 'one size fits all policy' almost never works. This one has already fallen down in the case of New York, New York. Exceptions need to be made and this can easily be done for the 10 or so internationally known cities. josh (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the page title should be Los Angeles. I haven't seen any reason to have it some other way that would not apply to many other cities. Lots of cities have airports, etc., that share their name. I also don't see how this will calling Los Angeles Los Angeles will inconvenience editors. I'm curious, what was this articl's name originally? Theshibboleth 06:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
For other named places with the title "Los Angeles" like Los Angeles International Airport or the port of Los Angeles near Long Beach, try the ambiguation page to learn more on a specific point of interest in the city. Anyways, the article should come up with multiple links for one get to the Los Angeles page, but the city is officially Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. for those in postal mail business and government services. Make a new link for anyone who types in "Los Angeles, Cal./ USA" and it will direct them to "Los Angeles" if you want to never inconvienently strand some users or what we call "wiki(pedian)s". --Mike D 26 19:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Objection to inclusion of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim baseball team should NOT be included in this article since they are technically speaking not actually a Los Angeles team, In fact the team actually plays in the neighboring city of Anaheim which in itself it a separately operated city which is NOT in the City of Los Angeles NOR are they even in Los Angeles County but are actually located in Orange County. It is my personal opinion and feeling that the Angels are trying to leech off a neighboring city by using that city's name instead of the one that they are actually located in and therefore they should not be included in the Los Angeles article. Misterrick 23:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you in some ways: The Angels are not really an LA team, but then again, isn't it true that the New York Yankees don't actually play in New York? It seems the basis of your objection is that you don't like the Angels though. As long as the article gives the team's full name (including the "of Anaheim" part, I think it should be there. People might come to the article looking for information on the Angels thinking they are an LA team. This point of controversy should be mentioned in the sports section if it isn't already. Theshibboleth 01:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Buddy, the Yankees play in The Bronx which, last time I checked, is in New York City. However, the Angels do not play in Los Angeles or L.A. County and should not be listed in a page called Los Angeles, California. - Freepablo

"Hey, the Yankees play in the Bronx! That is a part of New York City."

The Los Angeles Angels originally played in Los Angeles. It's part of L.A.'s history. The Los Angeles Rams played in Anaheim too. They were always considered the "Los Angeles Rams". It's not a big deal. As long as the ownership of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim consider it to be part of "L.A." it should remain. They may eventually relocate back home anyway... 70.36.253.64

The Los Angeles Angels are based in the Los Angeles area, and can (and should) be claimed by the city of Los Angeles, particularly if 'Los Angeles' is in their name. The modern day nature of U.S. cities includes a wide variety of suburbs, especially large cities like Los Angeles. Commonly, when dealing with sports, we refer to the team as belonging to the "central" city of the metropolitan area. Take Phoenix, Arizona, for example. The Arizona Cardinals and the Phoenix Coyotes are claimed by Phoenix, even though both teams play in nearby Glendale, Arizona. But Glendale is a suburb in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. The same would apply to Los Angeles. Dr. Cash 06:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't make sense to exclude the Angels, since they explicitly have aligned themselves with the city. Let's try to maintain some consistency here - this is an entry about the city, not the county. So the only reason to include the MLS clubs, which play in the city of Carson, is that they identify themselves as "Los Angeles" teams and play within the Los Angeles region. Otherwise, we'd have to move them to the Los Angeles County, California page. It doesn't make any sense - this site isn't about sequestering information. We should include the Angels, perhaps with a notation that they actually play in Anaheim. --Chancemichaels 04:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

For the reasons cited above (the two posts above mine), I'm going to add the Angels and Ducks back in. They certainly play in the Los Angeles market, their games are broadcast on Los Angeles television stations, they're covered by the Los Angeles papers (the LA Times site even lists the Angels first![1]), they're Los Angeles teams by any meaningful definition. --Chancemichaels 21:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

For 40 years, the Angels was called California at first, took the state's name to represent a team when it played in then suburban Anaheim and for those who don't know where that is: Think disneyland and that's where it is. In 1997, the Angels adapted "Anaheim" in the tradition of some major league teams in the past century has sometimes took smaller city names, i.e. Green Bay, Wis. and Brooklyn (New York city). The "Los Angeles" name was decided to attract more Angels fans across Southern Cal. and the bigger city means more profits for the team's coffers. As long it mentions "Anaheim" as in their home stadium: Edison Field (now Angel Stadium) of Anaheim, there should be no problem to Orange county, Los Angeles and any Angel fan for that matter. --Mike D 26 19:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

--Mike D 26 19:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge History of Los Angeles to this page

If this page contains a section for History then does it is nonsensical to have a separate page for the History of Los Angeles, California. The two pages should be merged.

The section in this article is a short summary. The article at History of Los Angeles, California is much longer and that is with a substantial chunk of history as yet unwritten. This article is already quite long and I don't think that adding several thousand words will improve it. -Willmcw 19:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Another vote against the merger. History of LA is long enough to merit its own article. Paz.--Rockero 16:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I third that. :) jengod 18:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Like everyone else said, the History of Los Angeles article is far too long to be merged into this one. joturner 05:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I concur. Practicaly all of the Los Angeles-related articles (Transportation of Los Angeles, History of Los Angeles, etc.) were split off into separate articles because they were getting insanely long. It makes no sense to merge them back into the main article. --Coolcaesar 00:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I also oppose merging the history article into the history section. There is too much information in the other article and it makes no sense to merge. Merging it is also inconsistent with other city article pages (like, most of them). Dr. Cash 04:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the history (although brief on this page) needs to be better written. It's very scattered, and poorly written. Onishenko 21:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A merger is no brainer: Just simply create a new page, an article on the History of Los Angeles (city) in the article, then put up a link to the new article and you're done. This will take a lot of time, unless the history is already written in the article and Wikipedia approves the transfer of info. to a new page. Make sure you copy and paste the city history, because you don't want to accidentally erase it. Believe me, it will hurt. --Mike D 26 19:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Estimate"

In the opening section it says "...estimate shows the city's population at 3,957,875" - they seem to pretty good in making their "estimate" if they can come up with a number calculated to the last digit. I suggest changing it to "estimate shows the city's population at close to 4 million". Themanwithoutapast 03:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Very well. Give us the source of the new population estimate. Los Angeles is still the second largest major city in the U.S. and held the title since surpassing Chicago in 1983 when L.A. had 3 million.

The 20th century was a remarkable period of real estate growth, economic development and progressive community planning, Los Angeles was labeled "the city of the century" to the think tanks in demographics. L.A. county has 9-10 million residents, the most of any U.S. county, doubled from 5-6 million in the 1950's and 15 times than of 1900 when L.A. city had 100-125,000.

What happened is the movies and entertainment industry was established in Hollywood since 1910 and the Port of Los Angeles near san Pedro opened in 1915, then Los Angeles doubled and tripled in size -- twice until 1940 (over 1 million by 1930, then to surpass 2 million in 1952).

In the early 1900's millions of Americans from back east or up north sought year-round sunshine, including the rich and famous bought homes in luxurious areas of the "Westside", and the suburban trend of rapid development in the san Fernando Valley, now to house half the city.

Followed by Mexicans hired to work in the city's burgeoning factories, by 1940 an estimate of 2 million Mexicans lived in the Los Angeles/Long Beach/ Santa Ana area, later joined by 250,000 Asians and half a million Blacks came from 1920 to 1960 quintrupled the Black population.

Also the "dust bowl" refugees from the Southern plains arrived in the 1930's and small but influential immigration from Europe: Irish, Italians, Poles, Armenians and Jews. Asian immigration since the 1970's tripled the size of a community with roots since the 1860's.

By what population statistics has shown, Los Angeles is a popular place for people to come in and find work, play in the sun or start lives anew. Not a surprise the city has 4 million people and still growing. --Mike D 26 18:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

This discussion produced no consensus after two weeks (December 31 to January 14), so voting is now closed. Feel free to continue discussion in the "Discussion" section below.

I've requested that this be moved from Los Angeles, California to Los Angeles for several reasons:

  1. Like several other cases, this is a US city where the name is unambiguous, but this is a case where it's universally recognized when you say "Los Angeles", and the majority of pages (as pointed out above in the section about the redundant redirect) already link to the simplified name.
  2. I realize there are some arguments about why it should be here in relation to the ambiguity of the term "Los Angeles", but think of it this way: If "Los Angeles" redirects here already, how much more ambiguous do we make it by having it at Los Angeles with the same disambig notice at the top? The prominent infobox, bold-faced letters, and diambig notice should be more than enough of a hint.
  3. Unlike Hollywood (a move I would oppose), there is no article that could potentially be written about the history of the phrase "Los Angeles".
  4. I realize there's always the bringing up of New York City, bit if someone is looking for precedent, see Toronto.

For the record, this is a one-shot deal for me; I'm not on a mission to change the face of Wikipedia or anything, I just think Los Angeles is more logical. :) Jibbajabba 07:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting

Support

  1. Jibbajabba 07:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Makes sense to me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. josh (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Seems logical to me. —Nightstallion (?) 11:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. (And I'd support most other major US cities being moved too.) Proteus (Talk) 13:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Just like my comments on Toronto I believe that there is only one possible place being discussed if someone mentions the name Los Angeles. There is no need for it to contain it's state name as well. Ben W Bell 16:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. As a major city (and a global one at that), the current article title unnecessarily redirects and complicates the issue for a visitor. Articles should only be so entitled when it is somehow problematic or unclear, in which case a disambiguation is also needed. E Pluribus Anthony 18:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. I'm the one who moved Toronto to Toronto, Ontario because I thought this was a universal thing even though I disagreed with it, but now I see there's some common sense after all. Answar 21:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Why does our country always have to be different from the rest of the world, and more often than not (as in this case) without good reason? --Vedek Dukat Talk 21:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  10. I support this for the same reasons as E Plurbus Anthony. BlueDrew 01:31, 03 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. The alleged "standard" [[City, State]] format was needed so that Rambot could generate most of the city names in the first place. But now, long after the bot's requirements are no longer relevant, there is no need for a consistent standard, particularly in a case like this one, where the simple name, Los Angeles, is a direct redirect to the city article anyway! In the case where there is a bonafide conflict, like Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, the [[City, State]] format should be used to resolve the ambiguity. But for many U.S. cities, there is no reason to not use the simple name, except to support the alleged "standard" for the sake of the "standard". That position, as represented by most of those who oppose this change listed below, is about as "non-Wikipedian" as I can imagine. It's shameful, and an embarrassment, and a direct violation of the primary Wikipedia article naming principle: use the most commonly used name, the name most people will use when they look up this article. Please support this most reasonable change. More importantly, please vote to support a clarification on the policy regarding this, here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names). The very integrity of Wikipedia is at stake. Thanks. --Serge 17:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strongly oppose for all the reasons that I've already listed when this has been brought up before. BlankVerse 13:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose for all the reasons given in the past, plus: American city names should not be modified until the voting on the Manual of Style (naming conventions) talk page is completed! (—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coolcaesar (talk • contribs) .) -- WhiteNight T | @ | C 17:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Per user:Coolcaesar. Do we really need to do this every few months? -Willmcw 18:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Olessi 19:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. US city names have a perfectly good standard. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. We have a perfectly good standard and I don't want to be arguing about whether or not every city in the country is recognized without including the state name. Gene Nygaard 21:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Every city in the U.S. (save one, NYC) is titled City, State (or City, Territory). This makes linking directly easy without having to remember a list of exceptions to the rule. And I agree with Gene here: I'd rather not open the path to a debate over making exceptions for dozens of other large cities in the U.S. Jonathunder 00:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. You're opening up a can of worms here. The more exceptions there are, the more cities will want to change because they think they're important or something. For that matter, New York should probably be changed back to the US city standard for wikipedia. Dr. Cash 04:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. For consistency with other U.S. city names. older≠wiser 13:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - we have a general naming convention issue that needs to be worked out first. --mav 14:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - U.S. city articles should have consistent names. Mike Dillon 16:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Please read the previous discussion and Talk:Los Angeles, California/archive1#Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names). -Willmcw 18:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I think we should have the city, state, country as the official name of the page. its the proper way for an encyclopedia.--Redspork02 21:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the fact that Ottawa and Toronto are at their current locations. For some reason, there's more resistance to the idea of moving an American city than a Canadian one; the arguments made on the Toronto talk page are just as valid here. --Schrei 21:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it's because we Americans are very proud of our dual sovereignty/dual citizenship system and the plenary powers of our state governments (see U.S. state for more info). Yes, it's a crazy way to run our country, but it's our country! That's why Americans are so accustomed to always saying city, state. --Coolcaesar 21:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
In all my years, I don't think I've heard someone say "Los Angeles, California", American or not. :P Like the other cities (you forgot Montreal, BTW), there's no reason this should be where it is. Jibbajabba 09:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
There are some very good reasons to have the article where it is. The chief one is that encyclopedias should strive for consistent, NPOV presentation of information. All U.S. towns and cities (with very few exceptions) follow this pattern. There shouldn't be a class of places deemed by editors to be sufficiently uniquely-named, or more notable than other identically named-places, that they deserve to be known by a single name like a rock star. Whether we're talking about Los Angeles or Columbus, we should aim for consistent, non-judgemental article titling. -Willmcw 10:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I thought it was just called LA... lol :). WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been asked to weigh in. On the other hand, there are better reasons (some cited) that the article should reside at Los Angeles (ditto for other major centres). The challenge is to balance consistency with pragmatism. Important among the reasons, simplicity: what is easiest for a visitor to type? Further to that, will a visitor – perhaps in London – be confused and intuit another LA somewhere? (Pride is a red herring: I suggest this very cognizant of a London near to my abode.) Similarly, why not just City of Los Angeles? Or Los Angeles (city)? And should we also move California to California, United States? Likely not: print dictionaries and compendiums do not entitle articles so; we shouldn't either unless needed ... which isn't the case here. (On the other hand, discrete lists of US cities might be a different matter, in which consistent use of state names or abbreviations among all would make sense.)
Hell, we can even perform basic Google tests to determine occurrences online of unique entries:
Arguably, with its current title: when a visitor enters "Los Angeles", they should be brought instead to Los Angeles (disambiguation), not to the city article. E Pluribus Anthony 18:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with this as well. As BlankVerse said, most references to "Los Angeles" are fairly nebulous. I would speculate that most are actually about the Greater Los Angeles Area. I would doubt that many people outside Southern California would have a reason to refer specifically to the City of Los Angeles, since it isn't even clear to some locals if something is part of the City or not and doesn't usually matter except when discussing politics and such. Mike Dillon 16:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


"We must be consistent" is a rediculous argument. It is human nature to be inconsistent. That's why we have the word "exception". It is impossible to create a universal rule (this one has already been broken by New York City and has to be extended to handle states with more than one city of the same name). Live by the sword and you'll die by the sword (probably killed by someone who learned to adapt and use a gun).

The use of city, state in the US doesn't apply to encyclopedias. In running text the state does not get added. This means that every reference to LA has to use the overly complicated [[Los Angeles, California|Los Angeles]] or go through the redirect. This is putting extra burden on editors and the system. All for the sake of someones pride. josh (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not pride, it's accuracy, which should be of paramount concern when writing an encyclopedia. When someone says "Los Angeles" they could be referring to any one of a number of different Los Angeles. Even when they think that they are referring specifically to the City of Los Angeles, they may be incorrect (other examples have been listed under other discussions above about changing the article's name, but here's another: East Los Angeles could be either an unincorporated part of the County of LA or a larger region of LA County that includes parts of the City of LA, LA County, and other cities). BlankVerse 10:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
If the definition of Los Angeles was so ambiguous then Los Angeles would be a disambig page. The fact is that 99% of the time Los Angeles means the city. The title isn't an exact definition of the subject. It's the shortest unambiguous title (see United States, United Kingdom). josh (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
99%????? Let's see some citation for that overblown "statistic". It's probably more like 30% LA City, 30% mythic nebulous LA, 20% LA region, 10% LA County, and 10% every other version of LA. Unless the reference to "Los Angeles" is further clarified, most of the time that I see it written in newspaper reports and magazine articles it is referring to the LA where movies and television are filmed (anywhere in the LA Basin, but less often within the city limits), where the LA Lakers play (used to be Inglewood), where California surfers can be found (Malibu to San Onofre), where West Coast rappers come from (Compton and LBC, among other places), ad nauseam. The more I think about it, the more I think that the Los Angeles page should be the disambiguation page. BlankVerse 12:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Consistency is a valuable attribute of an encyclopedia. If we have to decide on a case-by-case basis which places in the U.S. get to have a single name, then we'd have constant debates over which city deserves the honor. See talk:Newcastle or talk:Lincoln for examples these debates, which are due solely to the lack of similar standards for place names in other countries. -Willmcw 19:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Are there any other compendiums that entitle articles so 'consistently'unnecessarily and lengthily? These debates can be resolved through effective application of the common naming convention, and who's to say exceptions (e.g., major centres, examples above) shouldn't be dealt with through debate? The US standard arrived at, implemented with insufficient discussion (methinks), obviously hasn't quelled the debate here and elsewhere. Consistency can alternatively be dealt with through the effective use of categories. E Pluribus Anthony 19:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
This system wouldn't prevent the Newcastle and Lincoln debates. Neither to 2 main articles in the Newcastle argument (Newcastle upon Tyne and Newcastle, New South Wales) are at the Newcastle page. The argument is over whether that page should be redirected or a disabig page. If there was another equally famous Los Angeles then that would cause the same argument over the Los Angeles redirect.

Josh said the naming system "has to be extended to handle states with more than one city of the same name". Are there any U.S. states with two cities of exactly the same name? (In different states, of course, there are lots of examples, but in the same state -- that would surprise me.) Jonathunder 00:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

In California, we don't have cities of exactly the same name, but we do have several odd situations where the same name is shared by both a neighborhood and a city in a different part of the state. For example, there is Brentwood, the city, and Brentwood, the neighborhood of Los Angeles; and there is Los Altos, the city, and Los Altos, the neighborhood of Long Beach. --Coolcaesar 03:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
There are quite a few states that have cities with the same name but are in different counties, and as Coolcaesar points out, there are quite a few cities, neighborhoods, and unincorporated areas that share the same name. BlankVerse 12:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

?

Two cities in California can't have the same name because the Secretary of State doesn't allow new cities to incorporate with the same name as another city. However, there are currently cases in California where the "City, State" naming is not used because of duplicate names. The one I know about is Burbank, California which redirects to Burbank, Los Angeles County, California because there is a CDP in Santa Clara County called Burbank as well. Personally, it seems like the city of Burbank should have "Burbank, California" and the CDP should have some longer name. Mike Dillon 17:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that all of the votes from editors who are active in Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California are opposed to this move. Mike Dillon 17:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It has been two weeks without consensus, so I'm going to remove the {{Move}} template from this page. Mike Dillon 17:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Value consistency in specific format, or higher principle?

The core of this entire debate might be Willmcw's claim above that, "Consistency is a valuable attribute of an encyclopedia". What he seem to mean is that, with respect to the format used to name U.S. city article names, "Consistency is a valuable attribute of an encyclopedia". But, what he and most of the other supporters of the "standard" naming format for U.S. city names seem to fail to appreciate is that this encyclopedia, Wikipedia, already has a consistent naming policy, which contradicts using a consistent naming format for city names, which is use the most common name. This is why Cher, for example, is listed primarily under Cher, rather than under Cherilyn Sarkisian, her formal born name. Insisting on using Los Angeles, California for the sake of a "standard" is inconsistent with the primary Wikipedia naming principle, and we all agree that "consistency is a valuable attribute of an encyclopedia". --Serge 18:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Although sometimes it seems otherwise, the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. "Los Angeles" is a very ambiguous article name for the City of Los Angeles. Los Angeles, California is an accurate, unambiguous name. BlankVerse 14:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
If Los Angeles was ambiguous at all, much less "very ambiguous" as you claim, then the Los Angeles entry would not be a simple redirect to this page, which it is. All arguments in support of a "consistent format for city names", including this one, are contrived and baseless. You guys just like the look and ease of use (form the perspective of editors) of consistent naming. It's like designing software from the perspective of the programmer, rather than from the perspective of the user. --Serge 20:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
You're forgetting that users are the editors here. Your proposal is also contrived. All naming conventions are a contrivance. Some folks like it, others don't. So far there have never been enough who don't like it to change the de facto standard. So let's get on with creating an encylopedia and stop squabbling about inconsequential minutiae. older≠wiser 22:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that since Los Angeles is so ambiguous, and that most people, even many of the people living in the Los Angeles area, are often not sure what is LA City, LA County, etc. that the Los Angeles article should be either the disambiguation page, or a redirect to Los Angeles (disambiguation), although if a survey or straw poll was created over the issue, I am not sure that it would reach consensus. BlankVerse 17:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Everything's ambiguous. It's just a matter of relativity. (Addressing the ridiculous suggestion that Los Angeles should be a disambiguation page, many major cities have other things named after them, but this does not mean they all need to be disambiguation pages,) I've heard "standards" spoken of, but truly (as has been stated) the article title already breaks standards. The most common name is usually the one used for the article's title. What's more, Wikipedia is supposed to have a world view, and most many large cities outside the US are simply titled with the city's name, suggesting a break with "standards" for the US. If an exception can be made at the country level, why not at the city level. Addressing the "ease of editing" arguments, I am dubious. While currently there are more links directly to Los Angeles, California than to Los Angeles, I suspect that most of the Los Angeles, California links were originally Los Angeles and changed later. Almost anyone outside Wikipedia would say that this article should be named Los Angeles. I think this is one of those instances where Wikipedia has chosen groupthink instead of rationality. Theshibboleth 03:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A new proposal for global cities to use a single name is being voted on at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names). If passed it would override the decision here. -Will Beback 18:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I realize I'm getting into this debate rather late; however, while I generally agree with everything that BlankVerse says, I think that rather than making Los Angeles one giant disambiguation page, why not make it a Wikipedia:Portal? This would not only aide in disambiguation, but I think it would make all the people who want the page to go directly to the city happy as well. Kaibab 07:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Date links

Not to bring up another controversial topic in the midst (?) of yet another page move discussion, but there seems to be a lot of contextually irrelevant date links in this article. Is there any feeling as to whether or not the non-preference-related date links should be removed? (See WP:MOSDATE) Mike Dillon 03:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

IPA deleted?

Is the any particular reason why the IPA pronunciation of the city's name was deleted? This seems to be a pattern across Wikipedia. Theshibboleth 02:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The IPA transcriptions were removed as part of a large series of no-summary edits by 24.5.198.246 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) on December 19, 2005 and December 20, 2005 [2]. I doubt you'll get a response from the anonymous editor, but I would support putting back the IPA transcriptions of the English and Spanish names as found in this revision. The user was advised to "slow down" by both User:Willmcw and User:BlankVerse (both active here), but the majority of the contibutions are still in the article (and the user replied "shush" to BlankVerse on their talk page). Mike Dillon 02:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Very well then. The IPA's restored. Theshibboleth 07:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. -Will Beback 07:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Everything that IP edited should probably be checked. BlankVerse 16:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Sometimes these vandals can be really subtle. --Coolcaesar 16:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
WP:Bite! I don't think the anon IP was a vandal, just an inexperienced editor who was doing unwiki and unencyclopedic edits. BlankVerse 17:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The contribs don't look like a vandal to me either. I just used the {{Vandal}} template because it's an easy way to get a link to the contribs and talk page for a user. Mike Dillon 19:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Latest images

The newer image shows a bit more of the skyline, but it looks crooked to me and the foreground is distracting. I think the previous image is better overall. Other thoughts? -Will Beback 00:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted back to LosAngeles06.jpg because LASkyline.jpeg has copyright problems. Besides, it was the better image. BlankVerse 05:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Politics

I think it would be nice to have political stats on the people who live in LA from elections. Also It would be nice to have in that same section some info on the politics of most of the newspapers and any other political information like that that pertains to the city. If the later seems like it can be a non-bias outlook then that makes sense but I think that the original "political stats" should be put in because it is relevent to the makeup of the city. What do you guys think? --Kledsky 09:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If we have consistent sources for the info then it'd be nice to have that for every city, just as we have the demographics. Perhaps the voting citywide in the last several presidential elections. See Orange County, California, which has a political section. The newspaper info is difficult because there are no objective criteria like a vote count. Our editors try to judge the overall leaning of a paper, but it's an approximation. See Los Angeles Times, for example. -Will Beback 20:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Are the administrators in Wikipedia tries to avoid labeling a city being "mostly Democrat" like Los Angeles. I know the historic conservative trends in local and state politics has lot to do with the city's middle American character until the 1950's. Since this is a major city/metropolis, Los Angeles will receive a wide percentage of votes going for Democrats by its' demographics and the influence of Hollywood sides with the liberals on most issues. San Fernando valley and Pasadena used to pull to the right, like most of suburban cities: Especially Palmdale and Lancaster, and westernmost ends (Agoura Hills) was very Republican until the 1990's. Why not listed the political stats of L.A. voters in the last presidential elections (2000/2004) without any bias, but demonstrate what the facts said: Democrats outnumber Republicans in L.A. city? I figure the Los Angeles county article may inclosed presidential election results, so in that case the city is already covered among 85 other municipalities around Los Angeles "proper". --Mike D 26 19:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sister Cities

The article states twenty two sister cities, then lists twenty three. According to Sister Cities International Los Angeles has twenty one sister cities, leaving out Melbourne and Yerevan. Additionally, the City of Los Angeles does not list Tehran, thus specifying only twenty sister cities. Comments?--60.230.88.64 02:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sister city relationships are not a permanent condition. They require supporters on both sides of the relationship and the relationship can end if support wanes. There may have been 22 (or 23) sister cites at one time, but some of those connections may have ended and there are now only 20-21 sister cities. The list, therefore, needs to be verified, and then corrected. BlankVerse 11:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I would think that the most accurate reference to follow here would be Sister Cities International, since they're the 'umbrella' organization for the sister cities. I'm not sure why the local organization removed Tehran, perhaps Tehran removed themselves recently due to all of the recent issues between US-Iranian relations, so it might be worth looking into. Dr. Cash 21:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Rename Category:People from Los Angeles?

I hope I'm not digging up another long, pointless debate like the Los Angeles, California-versus-Los Angeles stalemate a few weeks back, but I'm thinking we should rename Category:People from Los Angeles to "Category:Angelenos". As we can see in Category:American people by city, most such cats are named for the one-word term describing a person from the city; e.g. Category:Chicagoans and even Category:Pasadenans. Plus, it's a pretty well-known term. One possible objection is that there are a lot of variants of the term, such as "Los Angeleno" and "Los Angelan". But in my experience I've found they're rarely used. I'm just trying to gauge consensus to see if there's any support for this idea before listing a renaming proposal on WP:CFD. szyslak (t, c, e) 06:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your Category:Angelenos suggestion. It is way too ambiguous and I didn't get it at first. If anything, it should be renamed Category: Los Angeles inhabitants, or something of the sort. Jared 14:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
What shall we call people of Los Angle-less (a local pronounciation not meant to make fun of the city name)? "Angeleno" is indeed a Spanish title, then why not refigure or translate into Angelian? Sounds good? I disagree ... but the traditional way for Los Angeles residents to self-title their city or regional origin is "Angeleno". I guess varieties of self-names exist, the Los Angeles way is "Angeleno" and not going to change. Another way to call these people (LoL) is So-Caler as in "southern Californian" but encompasses a large area that surrounds Los Angeles, but carry the same repertorie of who and what are the people of L.A.? If most of you want to go with "Los Angeles inhabitants", fine by me ... sure makes us look like P.C. wackos like they call us Californians back east or much of the country. --Mike D 26 19:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Crime rate

Is is really fair to say that Los Angeles has a low crime rate? Compared to some other cities in the US perhaps, but certainly not on a global scale?

The article used to correctly indicate that Los Angeles has a high crime rate. Some idiot vandalized the article on April 2 with no explanation and no one caught it (I was on vacation in Santa Barbara at the time). I'm fixing the section right now. --Coolcaesar 06:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The article has been vandalized again by an anonymous idiot. Fixing AGAIN. --Coolcaesar 20:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean vandalism? Whoever said it was low compared to other large US cities is RIGHT. Read this http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/06statab/law.pdf and look at Table 296. It shows clearly that LA has a lower crime rate than SF or Boston. "Vandal" is right, switch it back.
Wikipedia is for a GLOBAL audience. Last time I checked, we have not forked the English Wikipedia into U.S. and non-U.S. versions; indeed, the need to serve an international audience is why we use so-called logical quoting style even though most Americans (myself included) find it unsightly and offensive.
By the standards of most industrialized countries, as well as many rural and suburban parts of the United States, Los Angeles (and several other large U.S. cities) have outrageously high levels of crime. Last time I was in Hawaii, or Switzerland, or even certain nice parts of Mexico, I didn't have to worry about being shot at on the freeway by gangbangers out for cheap thrills, carjacked at any given red light, or becoming the victim of a "swoop and squat" insurance fraud crash. As any L.A. resident knows, all these things happen in Los Angeles every day, and are often the subject of front-page stories in the Los Angeles Times and the L.A. Daily News. --Coolcaesar 06:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Quiet ironic for you to emphasize the international nature of Wikipedia then assert that your view is right based on a personal anecdote. Notice that the paragraph in question did not say that LA is SAFE. It is saying that compared to Boston, SF and Chicago, it has comparatively LESS CRIME and a link to US Census statistic to bolster that argument. How hard is that to understand? --Infernalfox 08:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you're the kind of person who would hang out on the corner at Florence and Normandie at 2 a.m., and feel like you are much safer than the average resident of Chicago or Boston. How about 3rd and Alvarado? Or Olympic and Main? Do you even know which neighborhoods those intersections are in? I suspect you don't even live in L.A. — you certainly don't punctuate like an American! Have you ever visited the city? Anyway, to bolster my case, I will go dig up some citations in the L.A. Times archive on ProQuest when I have the time this weekend. --Coolcaesar 18:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you purposefully dense? Hopefully, you don't argue this way in courtrooms. And what the hell is "punctuating like an American"? That's racist. These are a series of ad hominem attacks that will be reported if your loutish behavior continues. FYI, I am from LA; I live, work, play in here just as it says in the adverts for Downtown. Don't waste your time digging up archives, none of your arguments so far are provable, rather, they are based on your random personal observations, which has no place in an encyclopedia. As much as you want to prove your stereotype is the god-given truth, we responsible editors have the duty of providing facts. --Infernalfox 20:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
May I add that I'm quite amazed that you're defacing and removing perfectly sensible entries when you yourself have yet to research them. Have a fun weekend.--Infernalfox 20:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Every city has dangerous areas, and most have safe areas too. We ought to seek to standardize the treatment of crime in city articles. Demographics and geography sections all start with the same basic statistical information, followed by special circumstances. In this instance, we can list the city crime rates and compared to those of some national average. The statistics are readily obtainable. Notable special issues in L.A. are gangs (OK, not so unique but important), size of police force (notably small per capita or per area), celebrity criminals, etc. Let's not try to come to a decision about L.A.'s crime problems, let's just summarize the notable sources. -Will Beback 23:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Only took five minutes to come up with four citations. Took me longer to retype the things in Turabian cite format than to find them. Damn, I'm good.

  • Andrew Romano, "Machetes on the Mean Streets," Newsweek, 23 March 2005, 24-25. Describes the rise of the MS-14 gang in Los Angeles and its spread to the rest of the country.
  • Ana Figueroa, "A City In Need Of An Angel," Newsweek, 9 December 2002, 48. Analyzes the difficulties facing then-new police chief William Bratton, including the city's violent crime problem.
  • Don Terry, "In Los Angeles, Tears, Confusion and a Resolution to End the Violence," New York Times, 17 July 2000, A12. Reports on the sharp upturn in 1999-2000 in the city's crime rate.
  • E. Chukwudil Onwuachi-Saunders, Deborah Lambert, Polly Marchbanks, Patrick O'Carroll & James Mercy, "Firearm-Related Assaults on Los Angeles Roadways," Journal of the American Medical Association 262, no. 16 (27 October 1989): 2262-2264. Finds positive association between rising traffic congestion and rise in number of car-to-car shootings in Los Angeles.

And that was just from one database (EBSCO). I'll look for more tomorrow. --Coolcaesar 00:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Found some more this morning on Infotrac from Thomson Gale:

  • Chitra Ragavan, Monika Guttman and Jon Elliston, "Terror on the streets," U.S. News & World Report 137, no. 21 (13 December 2004): 20. Discusses the rise in gang-related killings in L.A. and other cities, and the FBI's efforts to control the problem.
  • Travis Purser, "Under the gun in South L.A.: businesses suffer along with residents when violence leads to fear," Los Angeles Business Journal 24, no. 48 (2 December 2002): 1-2. Explains how L.A.'s per capita murder rate (highest in the nation in 2002) has severely impacted inner-city businesses.
  • Michael Krikorian, "Gang Truces All but Forgotten as Homicides Soar," Los Angeles Times, 21 July 2002: B3. Covers L.A.'s outrageously high homicide rate.

Will look again tomorrow. --Coolcaesar 14:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Found some more on LexisNexis today:

  • Beth Barrett, "Gang-Violence Crisis: L.A. Slayings Up 26% As Menace Reaches Epidemic Proportions," L.A. Daily News, 2 June 2004, N1.
  • Beth Barrett and Philip W. Browne, "Recipe For Failure: Inadequate Resources Keep LAPD Handcuffed," L.A. Daily News, 27 September 2004, N1.
  • Jason Kandel, "Murder Spike In Valley: Stats Show Killings Up 48% In 2004," L.A. Daily News, 3 July 2004, N1.

I think I've made my point. When I have the time I will integrate all of these into the article and into relevant articles on L.A. neighborhoods. --Coolcaesar 00:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Economy

An anon tried to delete most of the economy section, but he wasn't all wrong. The logic of listing companies depending on whether their city is L.A.-adjacent or not seems odd. I suggest that we create one list with all L.A. County companies of note, regardless of city, at Los Angeles County, California#Economy. This article could retain the names of companies in the city itself. -Will Beback 07:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The Economy section started off with just companies within the city, then a whole bunch of idiot newbies began adding companies to the list which were within L.A. County rather than L.A. City. I hit upon the adjacent/non-adjacent dichotomy as a compromise, but at this time, I agree with you that it would be more coherent to limit the list within this article to companies ONLY within L.A. and to move the rest to L.A. County. --Coolcaesar 20:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright with me. But a few people added companies based in L.A. turns out was headquartered in adjacent communities. Sometimes we all make mistakes in our error of judgment. Here's a rule: If the company is based in L.A. city, put it in the listing for companies based in L.A. city, not county. Some of us are quite serious on the rules (about the dichotomy when you list things in a city, but turns out in nearby areas aren't exactly within the city you described). I forgive the anon IPs or other users and my advice is check the location of the company, then you won't have problems in editing the page.--Mike D 26 19:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Basingstoke

Is there a reference for basingstoke becoming a sister city with LA? Neither of the following two sources confirm this to be true [3], [4] David D. (Talk) 23:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a mistake from a previously undetected act of vandalism [5]. David D. (Talk) 23:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Footer templates

Having the footer templates makes this article look ugly, mainly because they are of different widths.

Climate Table

Guys, the climate table currently looks a bit ugly. I'm not sure that the alternating color helps, and it (even at 1280x1024 resolution) extends beyond the edge of the page, requiring you to scroll across to see the entire table. This isn't ideal.. It seems that this is due to the attempt to display both inches and millimeters to a decimal placein the rainfall, which extends each column too far. We could round the rainfall data to the nearest milimeter. I may do that right now, in fact - whoever convered from inches to millimeters perhaps didn't consider just how small 0.1mm really is. I'll leave the colour scheme up for discussion, but my preference is something simple and neutral like in Melbourne. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Melbourne chart is better looking. -Will Beback 19:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What is a good article?

The Los Angeles article failed the following listed criteria of WP:WIAGA.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
(b) the citation of its sources is essential, and the use of inline citations is desirable, although not mandatory;
(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

The Copyeditor 03:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, this article barely have refs, fix it. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 03:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone: for a good example of what a well-referenced article looks like, see my current pet project, Lawyer. --Coolcaesar 08:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Big Orange

Am I the only one that has heard the Big Orange nickname? Is it not notable enough to be mentioned? Joffeloff 21:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've lived in LA my whole life and never heard "Big Orange." Is it derogatory?—BassBone (my talk · my contributions) 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is very notable. A Google search shows that a more common use of "Big Orange" is in reference to the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. I think "Big Orange" is only used as a counterpoint to "Big Apple". -Will Beback 04:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought the "Orange" was the University of Syracuse, because of their team nickname is the Orangemen. I never heard of L.A. called " big orange", but there's a nickname used to denote Californians: "prune picker" from the state known for prunes. Los Angeles isn't known for prunes, maybe 50 or 100 years ago, before the prunes and oranges and any agriculture was built over. Overdevelopment made Los Angeles look not as scenic than it was described by the first residents. If it wasn't urbanized, then there won't be anything to made L.A. the city we know by, and not as the "big orange". --Mike D 26 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

GA status

Further progression :

  • Reference section not big enough.
  • Needs to give the etymology/history of the city's name. Lincher 01:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The article lists the derivation of the name in the "history" section. A longer treatment is in the "history" article. -Will Beback 03:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted the article.

25353 bytes were lost in a rewrite by 68.70.77.107, which I reverted while watching the recent changes. History was stubified, all of Geography was lost, most of climate and heavily cited portions of Environmental issues, numerous See Also and Main Article links to sub articles, libraries, and the <references/> marker were lost. Last, there was no edit summary and the editor had no previous edits. I hope this was appropreate. Kevin_b_er 06:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin, but there is no need to comment on every reversion of vandalism. It happens all the time, so doing so would unnecessarily fill up the talkpage with such notes. Thanks for your vigilance, --Rockero 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Bangkok and Los Angeles

This might be a silly question. Anyone knows another city meaning as "City of Angels" as Los Angeles and Bangkok (Krungthep, lit. city + angels); just my curious.

City Hall Images

I'd posted several images on this page as part of a widespread wiki project I'm undertaking to expand the amount of images available for whatever cities I can manage to do any photography in, but I've noticed that all but the picture of the L.A. Times headquarters have been removed from this page. I don't see anything about it in the discussion, so I've re-posted just one of them--currently the second city hall image. I'm requesting a vote over which city hall image to keep up. Thanks. Techgeist 22:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The article already has a "too-large" warning, it doesn't make sense to add more pictures, especially if it is of the same structure. The new city hall image is awful compared to the original one. The new one if off-centered, squat, murky, and makes it seem like City Hall is 20 feet tall. --Infernalfox 02:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
We've got two City Hall pictures, several downtown skylines, and a couple of other downtown photos. I'd suggest that we should ony have one city hall photo. I don't think a photo of the Times building is especially-valuable here, though it'd be great in the article on the newspaper. -Will Beback 04:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Infernalfox is right that the new photo by Techgeist is absolutely awful. It was shot on a mostly overcast day at the worst possible angle and with the wrong camera settings. I would have used 1/240 or even 1/100 shutter speed, for one thing. A better angle would have been through the wire fence from the other side of the Criminal Justice Center parking lot (I was just there a few weeks ago but didn't have my camera on me at the time). Plus at the very least the photo badly needs color balancing (which is available in nearly all photo editing programs). --Coolcaesar 05:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

full name

I came across a comment in a long words page that LA's full name is EL PUEBLO DE NUESTRA SENORA LA REINA DE LOS ANGELES DE PORCIUNCULA

Is there any truth in this??

Pizzadeliveryboy 15:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No, there isn't. I checked the city's charter. The official name is "The City of Los Angeles". Every month or two someone tries to "correct" the article. Thanks for asking first. -Will Beback 20:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)