Talk:Los Angeles County, California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Los Angeles County, California article.
Article policies
Map needed
 It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in California may be able to help!
This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Southern California. For guidelines see WikiProject Southern California and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

Contents

[edit] Category:Cities in Los Angeles County

Anyway to include a link to this more comprehensive list without actually adding the article page to the category page?

[edit] Citation

I thought we had the discussion on places in the United States that we would include the state's name. I'd hate to see people start redirecting to non-disambiguated pages when there may BE a county with the same name in more than one state and they don't know about it. -- Zoe

We did, so I moved it. Most links were to LA County, California anyway. dml

The last time I read the discussion, the most-well-known-name clause did not exclude places in the United States, even if there were another much more obscure county of the same name in another state. --Brion

There was a specific vote on this very issue. The result of the vote was to preemptively disambiguate city names in the US. --mav

When did that vote take place? The only time I see anything about that subject in the votes as recorded on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names)/Archive 3 was on the precise format to use when disambiguation did occur "subject to the above determination" (which determination was in fact normal disambiguation, not preemptive). At least, that was certainly my interpretation at the time, and I've seen nothing official or semi-official in the results to contridict it. --Brion 20:19 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)
Notice the word "all" in that vote. --mav
ALL the ones that are in fact disambiguated, ie the format is to be consistent when it is used. --Brion 20:40 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)

"All cities in the United States are to be designated in the [City, State] format." I don't see the word "disambiguation" anywhere in there. There was also no overarching statement before that establishing the context of disambiguation. --mav

[edit] City, Nation format

Subject to the above determination, cities are to be disambiguated as [City, Nation] unless there is there is a more specific rule such as [City, State] applicable to its country.

[...]

[edit] United States

All cities in the United States are to be designated in the [City, State] format.

Notice how the "United States" section is a subsection of "City, Nation format", which starts out by saying that the entire section is subject to the above vote, which was about pre-emptive vs natural disambiguation. --Brion 20:57 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)
Whew, mav, you've got me confused. What does "preemptively disambiguate" mean? :-) -- Zoe
It means that all cities in the US are to be in the [City, State] format. --mav
You know, pants (clothing), Internet (computing), United States (country)... Just to be sure. ;) --Brion
Those are not at all natural disambiguators. Furthermore there was no vote on disambiguating those things. [Los Angeles, California] is perfectly natural and widely used. I know you are just kidding though. --mav
Look at what links to Los Angeles, California and tell me which is the most widely used. --Brion
That's the beauty of redirects -- they are there for convenience. --mav
Which is exactly why Los Angeles can live at Los Angeles, while the more awkward Los Angeles, California can redirect to it. --Brion

- ::::::Should we redirect New Orleans, Louisiana to New Orleans? San Francisco, California to San Francisco? Boston, Massachusetts to Boston? -- Zoe

Yes, yes, and yes. --Brion
Well, when I tried to get movie names changed to "Name" (year) instead of "Name" (year movie), Maveric took it to the list for a vote. But this has already been voted on, so does that mean it needs to be brought up again? -- Zoe
It just was brought up, and I got shouted down. (YEAR movie) stays where it is needed. --mav
Right, mav, I wasn't trying to complain otherwise, just suggesting that if Brion feels strongly enough, we could vote again. -- Zoe
But this is counter to what was voted on Brion. --mav
Mav, that's exactly what I saw voted for. Everything you've cited at me so far supports my contention. --Brion
Gotta live with the vote, Brion.  :-) -- Zoe
I agree 100%, Zoe. Unfortunately, Mav's interpretation of what the vote was about appears to somehow be the polar opposite of mine. If I had realized he was that misguided at the time, I would have spoken up then. --Brion
Misguided? Sorry, I was just reading "All cities in the United States are to be designated in the [City, State] format." to mean that all cities in the US were to be in the [City, State] format. The wording "Subject to the above determination" was for the [City, Nation] format and the US convention came after that as being an exception. --mav

Eh, Mav, it was definitely NOT decided to disambiguate all US cities with [City, State], but only when necessary (i.e. normal disambiguation rules) as Brion is already pointing out. Of course, it is necessary in the cases of f.e. Los Angeles and San Francisco, since there are some other towns or hamlets that happen to have the same name. However, there's only one New Orleans, so that article can happily live at New Orleans.

As for redirects: I'd say Los Angeles is pretty much THE Los Angeles, same for San Francisco. So they should be at Los Angeles and San Francisco, with a block-format disambiguation at the top. Jeronimo

Then how the hell do you explain the wording that was used? "All cities in the United States are to be designated in the [City, State] format." seems pretty damn clear to me. --mav

That "damn clear" wording is from a vote that only 6 of the 20 voters participated in and was, as far as I know, never announced to be closed. I, and at least 13 others, were probably confused by the big number of issues being voted on. The ONLY two things that are actually decided (vote, and vote closed and result announced) are that 1) we will have normal disambiguation and 2) we will use the comma notation when disambiguation is required. Neither of the other stuff on the voting page is clear to me, so I cannot "the hell" explain it to myself, let alone anyone else. Therefore, we should sort out and fix this entire naming policy soon. I'm willing to do thies, but as people squibble over every detail, I'm not going to do it by myself and get blamed for everything if something is wrong (this is another example of mis-communication, since I'm apparently not the only one that had this view). I've left a few points (details really) open for discussion at the talk page. Go ahead and add this issue to either the main page or to the items to be discussed. Jeronimo

[edit] Topanga

Topanga, an unincorporated area, doesn't seem to have any Wikipedia articles or references, beyond a couple of listings for the State Park. In fact, the link Topanga goes to a music album (and it should probably be renamed "Topanga (Album)"). Topanga doesn't show up on the list of unincorporated areas here. Los_Angeles_County#Census-designated_places_which_are_not_cities. I believe that the article on the neighborhood/area should be designated "Topanga, California", which is the USPS designation, rather than "Topanga Canyon". Pi9 00:06, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I know that Anaheim is not in Los Angeles County

In response to what BrownstoneKnockn said. I was cleaning up the article from what was there already, and added only what info given to me from someone who lives in the area, and they gave me Arrowhead Pond as a location. I only assumed that it was there because they said that, but I don't live there myself so I can't be blamed for putting it back. But then that's the beauty of a Wiki. You correct whatever you feel is necessary. You live there anyway, don't you? Riffsyphon1024 00:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I apologize if my summary was a bit abrasive. I just knew that someone was going to add it back because I made the original change as an unregistered user and didn't leave a reason so when it happened it was one of those pull-your-hair-out moments. ;-) -Brownstone 09:41, 24 Jan 2005
Ok then. Riffsyphon1024 17:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economy

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, here. -Will Beback 07:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Can we get a map of LA County w/ each city and CDP labeled on it? I know you can click on each city's article and see it highlighted on the LA County map, but it'd be really useful to see them labeled on one big map. Passdoubt | Talk 17:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed with "Extreme" Prejudice

We don't think that the numero uno, most populous county in the country should have a "See also" link to the least populous? I know the "what's at the other extreme?" question popped into my head when I read the first sentence of this article. With a difference of about 9,758,830 people between the two, I think it provided a nice contrast. Curiously, -HiFiGuy 17:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shopping Centers

I realized that the article doesn't have any list of shopping places in the county. Perhaps a list of malls and shopping centers and the suburbs they're located in should be added to the "Sites of Interest" section. AManSac 00:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a BAD idea. Some novice tried to create "List of shopping mall" articles for every state in the Union and articles on every shopping mall in the country as well. The last time I checked, nearly all of those lists have been deleted through the Articles for deletion process because the vast majority of shopping malls are non-notable, and Wikipedia is not a random indiscriminate collection of information. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Coolcaesar 20:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] L.A. County Maps

To Anyone Concerned:

I will be adding in the coming days (or weeks, depending on how long it takes) a series of .SVG maps to Wikimedia Commons showcasing cities and unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County to replace the .png maps currently being used in many of the city articles and to add maps to the articles for unincorporated areas that don't have them. This will be similar to what I have already done for all cities in Maricopa County. I have already uploaded one to the Los Angeles article for all to view, so if you would like to see an example of the maps I will upload, check it out there.

If anyone has any criticisms or complaints or anything like that, please let me know before I go through and upload some 150 maps to the commons and then change and edit some 150 articles about various cities in L.A. County

Regards, Ixnayonthetimmay 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

hows the weather?

[edit] Town Councils

This section of the unincorporated community discussion is rather fuzzy and inaccurate. Town Councils are recognized by the 5th District Supervisor (Antonovich), but they are not "official" government entities, and receive no funding or support from the county. They are simply "advisory" bodies to Sup. Antonovich. Antonovish lists 18 Town Councils on his website, but some (e.g. Roosevelt) are inactive (no regular meetings). Town Councils are different than the LA City Neighborhood Councils, in that they are not established by charter or ordinance. There are organizations in other Sup Districts which also represent their communities (Rowland Heights, etc), but they are not "Town Councils", and they are even less closely connected to the County government, basically neighborhood associations. Their relationship to the county is strictly unofficial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jma2120 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)