Talk:Los Angeles

Why Not Include Greater Los Angeles Population (CSA)

If you don't include the Inland Empire in the numbers. LA/Ontario would be out of the area.

The whole region (including the Inland Empire) is one Megalopolis. The whole area is in one TV market. The Radio market is seperate, but 5 of the top 10 stations are from LA.

Also leaving the Inland Empire out of the region, is like leaving San Jose out of the Bay Area.

I say leave the CSA mention in the article.

02:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Michael Kramer, Los Angeles

This is the article on L.A. The article on S.F. wouldn't include the population of S.J. We already have an article on Greater Los Angeles that includes the information you're asking about. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Mr. Kramer's suggestion is nearly as silly as mentioning the population of Philadelphia in the article on New York City. His suggestion is the kind of thing that Kramer on Seinfeld would say! --Coolcaesar 18:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

How about merging the two articles ? most of foreigners don't understand the diffrence between LA and greater LA, i know this is also a silly idea but it's serious somehow.  A M M A R  15:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense because the two articles are already so huge that merging them would result in one giant mess which someone else would suggest should be split up. Also, while Greater Los Angeles is a rather loosely defined concept, the City of Los Angeles has a very specific legal meaning. --Coolcaesar 20:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The population of the entire region, which includes the Inland Empire, should be referenced in the article. Of course the article should indicate the population of the City of Los Angeles, but the Inland Empire is clearly part of the CSA. This is nothing like saying Philadelphia should be described as part of New York. As the first comment correctly points out, there is only one TV market (unlike New York and Philadelphia). The "Los Angeles Times" newspaper serves the entire area. The major airport in the Inland Empire (Ontario International) is owned and operated by the City of Los Angeles and in fact recently changed its name to "LA/Ontario International Airport." To at least not mention the total CSA population in the article is very misleading. MNGuy5247 (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the city of los angeles not the region. there is a different article for the region of los angeles which has these facts. Ramgar11 (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)November 19, 2007

41.201.236.116 (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Howcome the editors and writers of this article failed to find the Arab-Muslims in LA or Asian-Muslims, but of course they have found the other religions sprawling in LA. This is also a religious discrimination when they are trying to bury their heads in the sand.41.201.236.116 (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You are an editor, too. Go ahead and add material with references to reliable, published sources. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Size of Mexican community

• Los Angeles has the largest Mexican community in the world outside of Mexico City, which is greater than even Guadalajara.

I removed this unsourced statement based on a previous (now archived) discussion. Briefly, Guadalajara, Jalisco has a 2005 population of 1,600,940. While some may not be Mexicans, for the sake of argument we can assume that all are. As of 2000 Los Angeles had a foreign-born population of 1,512,720, of which only 996,996 were born in Latin America. Therefore it's likely that L.A. has about half as many Mexican-born people as Guadalajara. Of course it's possible to define "Mexican community" various ways, and perhaps in some definition L.A. would qualify. Even so, we need to reliable source for this assertion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, speaking of unsourced demographic statistics, the same unsupported statements have been in the "demographics" section for years. I've removed them. It's not worth the convenience of having a statement already there if no one has verified that statement after this long.--Loodog (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

TOO MANY images.

This article has far too many images.

I counted 40 images here.

Just for comparison: New York's article has 24 images Chicago has 25. Houston has 24.

So we can definitely cut a bit of these images to make the article less cluttered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogma5 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Four landmark picture should be cut, as bout staples center and the Los Angeles central library appear one already in the article.75.62.146.6 (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Landmarks

The LA City Cultural Heritage Commission designates what they call "Historic-Cultural Monuments." That list is distinct from the list of landmarks in the article, which seems to be based on original research or an anecdotal approach. 71.104.135.165 (talk) 07:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Estimates again

I don't know why we keep having this issue with this article and this article alone, but US Census numbers only for the population numbers as per WP:USCITY. To my knowledge, there is only one source that has numbers and estimates for the 259 US cities and it's NOT the California Department of Finance. Local bureaus tend to overestimate, and more importantly, tend to overestimate differently from other local bureaus. This is why we rely on and rank by US Census figures only.--Loodog (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus. Besides, the request was initiated by a sock of an indefinitely-blocked vandal. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Requested move #5

Los Angeles, California → Los Angeles — Having Los Angeles as a redirect to this page doesn't make sense. Moving it will make it no less convenient for users to find Los Angeles (disambiguation). Los Angeles, Chile has fewer than 500 pages linking to it. The top 40 (at least) google search results for "Los Angeles" all refer to this one. Charles Stewart (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

As a note for people unfamiliar with naming conventions, US cities are generally listed City, State. However cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York City are already listed at just city. Charles Stewart (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support. There is only one reason this article is titled as such; which is the "city, state" format for which American cities are commonly named, but which this article has no need for because this is the meaning that comes in to everyone's mind when they hear the name "Los Angeles". Georgia guy (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. (As in #4, #3...I don't think I was on board for #2.) Los Angeles refers to one of four different areas (in no specific order):

  1. Los Angeles, California, the city
  2. Los Angeles County, California
  3. Greater Los Angeles Area
  4. The United States Post Office's definition of Los Angeles, generally zip code 90000-90099, approximately corresponding to those portions of the city south of the Santa Monica Mountains.
  5. The Los Angeles Metropolitan Area (presently redirecting to #3, but the present Los Angeles, California article mentions it as consisting of Los Angeles County and Orange County.

  As a person living in the area, I'd be hard pressed to determine whether #1, #3, or #4 is the most common usage. As has been determined in the Las Vegas fiasco, sub-disambiguation pages are frowned upon, so I'd recommend redirecting Los Angeles to Los Angeles (disambiguation). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  Comment. All of those are in California. The "California" suffix does not logically distinguish the city from the other meanings. If there were, for example, a Los Angeles, Texas that is also well-known, then the "California" suffix would be a sensible way to dis-ambiguate. Georgia guy (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • • Comment on Comment There actually is a Los Angeles, Texas]. But it doesn't come to mind for most people when they say Los Angeles. csloat (talk) 07:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

    Comment on comment It would less ambiguous than that since the WP standard location for a US City is City, State.--Loodog (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

    • Third level comment. The City, State terminology is for 2 special cases:

      1. Writing a postal address
      2. Distinguishing it from another city with the same name but in a different state. Wikipedia's normal policy is to use the most common name of whatever its article is about. Georgia guy (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. A) There is a convention to have U.S. cities and towns in the [city, state] format, and this city is not different from the thousands that use that format. Conventions work best when followed as much as possible. B) As discussed above, the nomenclature is complicated. "Los Angeles, California" refers more clearly to the city than does "Los Angeles". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  I should have added that (IMHO) "Los Angeles, California" is only used for the city and postal designation. So, it's at least, a helpful disambiguator. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons well-stated by Arthur Rubin. Los Angeles the city (as in the municipal corporation and territory governed thereby) is frequently confused with the county, metro area, and postal delivery area. If you don't believe me, go work for Legal Aid in L.A. sometime (I have) and watch poor people get confused by the differences between all the agencies run by all the different government entities. In my opinion, Wikipedia should be trying to clarify the situation, not confuse it. I prefer the status quo. The only principled rearrangement of L.A. content I could support would be making Los Angeles a disambiguation page to distinguish between the various meanings noted by Arthur Rubin. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose again and again and again. This issue has been decided and bringing it up for individual cities is a total waste of time. If you want this change made, have the consensus naming guideline changed. Also, what exactly does LA mean? Is it a city? Is it a county? Does in mean the metropolitan area? Or does it mean the Los Angeles Basin? Personally the dab page should redirect to the dab page since there is no primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  Comment. The most logical name based on your description would be Los Angeles (city). Georgia guy (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  And how would that would that be better then the current name which follows the settlement naming convention? Vegaswikian (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  The suffix "California" would dis-ambiguate it from something that there is no need to dis-ambiguate it from; a city called Los Angeles in a different U.S. state. Georgia guy (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Los Angeles already redirects here implying primary topic usage. It is also listed in the naming guideline as one of those cities that may be excempt from requiring the use of the state name. Move the dab page first before you oppose this one. --Polaron | Talk 04:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per naming consensus (BTW, I do think the 3 examples given by the move nominator should be moved back and would support anyone who makes such a request) and the last time this move request failed. There are many possibilites for "Los Angeles". MAYBE change "Los Angeles" to redirect to the disambiguation page (although i'm not a fan of that idea either). TJ Spyke 08:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose and consider moving the disambig page to the primary name. The only way to be able to accurately dab links to Los Angeles is to have that page not automatically redirect. The fact that there are other uses, but one is numerically dominant actually makes it more important to not have that as the default, as people who know they mean one of the others will usually not bother to check the link when they don't think/realise there could be a conflict. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support The guidelines for naming U.S. cities explicitly lists Los Angeles as a potential candidate for this kind of move and suggests anyone who supports such a move do it in this manner. The merits of this particular move should be considered accordingly. The most common usage of the name Los Angeles is clearly for the city, and Los Angeles already redirects to the article about the city. --Serge (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Georgia guy. The U.S. Cities naming convention lists LA as an exception. I do not see the point of enforcing the convention just for the sake of it. Wikipedia:NAME:CITY#United States is a subset of the larger Wikipedia:NAME, which is simple: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Since , California does not reduce ambiguity with regard to other LAs in the state, I see it as superfluous. Tigeron (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • However LA is ambiguous and there is no proof that there is a primary use. So your logic appears to be flawed. Vegaswikian (talk)
    • If it's good enough logic to warrant Los Angeles redirecting to the city article, which it is, it's good enough logic to putting the city article at that name. If there is a flaw in the logic, it's not practically significant. --Serge (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
      • And it is not clear that the redirect is proper for several reasons. First there is no primary usage. Second having the dab page at the main name space helps the tools that are used to fix links that don't point to a real article. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
        • So find out if there is consensus to move the dab page first because otherwise there is no basis to oppose as long as the unqualified name redirects here. --Polaron | Talk 13:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
          • And after some point, certainly a number of years, it has to be reasonable to assume that there is no consensus about such a basis existing, which is a reasonable assumption in this proposal. --Serge (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Los Angeles is listed as an exception so it should be one. csloat (talk) 07:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The wording of WP:NC (settlements) is "may be listed at [[City]]"; that is intentional. A dozen cities are included at [[City, State]] although they don't have to be; Atlanta chose not to move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It is not listed as an exception. And even if it was, that list does not cover the ambiguousness of the name as pointed out above. Given the multiple uses, it is best to have the dab page at the main name space since it does the least harm and allows the automated disambiguation tools to work most effectively. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - This is an obvious case for a U.S. Cities naming convention exception. The issues about similar "Los Angeles" topics that Athur Rubin brought up can be easily dealt with by a disambiguation page, just as Philadelphia (a smaller city that is already a naming convention exception) has its disambiguation page. Los Angeles is one of the most iconic and recognizable cities on earth and that Wikipedia feels the need to add ", California" to its title only brings confusion to readers as to which "Los Angeles" they are looking at. I can picture thousands of readers around the world on a daily basis coming to this page for the first time and asking themselves "Why did they have to remind me what state its in?" --Oakshade (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Considering the massive amount of time and energy expended by Wikipedia editors upon this issue in the past, this is obviously a frivolous proposal, and in my opinion, may constitute trolling in clear violation of numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines. See WP:TROLL. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith. Also, the guideline being cited by some of the oppose votes does allow for a few exceptions and Los Angeles is listed as one of them. So opposing just on the basis of the naming guideline is not a valid one. The other oppose votes are of the opinion that the city is not the primary topic. If you can show this convincingly by successfully moving Los Angeles (disambiguation) to Los Angeles, then these oppose votes do have a point. Otherwise, they're meaningless as Los Angeles already redirects here and has for a long time. --Polaron | Talk 04:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, Polaron, you seem to be unaware of the long history of this massive debate over the past four years. Please reread the complete archives of this talk page as well as Naming conventions (settlements), and the talk pages for Chicago and New York City. The original guideline had no exceptions and logically should have continued to have no exceptions, but a number of immature naughty trolls managed to wear down more mature and experienced editors like myself by repeatedly introducing move proposals on Chicago and New York City and then turning around and claiming that was a sufficient basis to write an exception into the guideline. I have been far too busy with my professional and social life, and developing articles about topics that I care deeply about (e.g. Lawyer and Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins), to take some of those bozos to arbitration. Successfully taking User:Ericsaindon2 to arbitration and getting him banned was a monumental task in itself.

Also, for the record, User:Charles Stewart just posted the following ad hominem attack to my personal talk page (at this edit):

== hi there ==

If I'm a troll you can go fuck yourself. Thanks for assuming good faith douchebag. Charles Stewart (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Charles, the quality of your intellect speaks for itself (as does the sincerity of your argument). I'm sure the SJC loves your style. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe it is time to move Chicago and Phili back? Yes we had a consensus to not move them to match everything else, but if they are constantly being used to argue for more changes then they are problems that need to be addressed. NYC is in a class by itself and what, if anything, to do with it should wait until it is the only exception. I suppose if we want to discuss this, the naming convention page is the only place that we would need for the discussion since it would result in a change in the convention. 20:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure it matters what title the Chicago and Philadelphia articles are at. Since arguments to that effect amount to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, they can be easily ignored in discussions about this article's title. The current consensus among the editors of those pages is that their titles should be "Chicago" and "Philadelphia", not "Chicago, Illinois" or "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania". It would serve no real purpose to march in there and tell them they have to change those titles just for the sake of consonance. szyslak 00:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Szyslak and Caesar. This talk page is the place to discuss LA and only LA. If want to want change other cities or conventions altogether, it should be done at naming conventions, rather than piecemeal.--Loodog (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the naming conventions seem to say to do it here:

If you think any of the other articles listed above should be moved to City instead of City, State, please start a discussion via Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Los Angeles is among the "articles listed above". And if someone lists a requested move for an article, aren't they supposed to start a discussion for that move on the talk page of that article? --Unflappable (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe Loodog meant that we should discuss moving "Chicago" and "Philadelphia" on other pages, not that we should discuss moving "Los Angeles" some where else. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Life in Los Angeles

I certainly wouldn't want to live in Los Angeles. They have too many highways and broad streets. When a city is built for cars instead of pedestrians, nearly everybody there would need his or her own car. It's very easy to get hurt in a city full of cars! 71.90.23.222 (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

LA, just so you know, is "more courteous" with driving than New York, Boston, and Miami. (http://autos.aol.com/article/safety/v2/_a/road-rage-aggressive-driving-states/20070806101009990001) All three of those cities (esp. New York and Boston) are more pedestrian oriented than LA. So, "too many highways and broad streets" doesn't necessarily mean it's less safe. --Superpig702 (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Less driver-oriented infrastructure generally manifests itself in insane drivers. You want to get anywhere you've got to get used to driving aggressively here (Boston). Not that I have any data, figures, or quantitative way to show this. I'm pretty sure you guys out in LA can cover ground, say, three times faster on average.--Loodog (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

But you also spend a lot of time looking for parking and sitting in traffic jams, which are ubiquitous and unpredictable. South Los Angeles and the Valley are less prone to bad traffic jams; Hollywood, the Westside, and Downtown are legendary for traffic jams at almost all hours. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sister cities

Check these editions. I am afraid it is not everything correct here. Probably there are 25 sister cities of Los Angeles around the world, and Wrocław (Poland) is probably not among them. Julo (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added fact tags to all sister cities not listed in source. Alanraywiki (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I say we just delete them. The source comes from the city itself, and I presume if there were more sister cities, they'd want to say so. The additional cities should only be re-added if another reliable source verifies them. szyslak (t) 00:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I just fixed the list and added an HTML comment that warns against fooling around with it. Every few weeks, someone will make an unsourced addition or removal. Perhaps people are doing their own original research about what LA's sister cities "should" be, or they "heard from somewhere" that this or that city is a sister city. szyslak (t) 00:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm. Sorry for adding my opinion like this. I was thinking for the population increase in the demographics paragraph, the percentages aren't reasonable. 300%? It should be like 20%. I'm just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NN3210 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

IPA

Shouldn't it be /lɑˈsændʒəleɪs/ rather than /lɑˈsændʒələs/. The currect one sounds wrong to me. --neonwhite user page talk 14:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's correct as it is. --WorldWide Update (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

How to edit Los Angeles?

How do I edit incorrect information in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumble Jowls (talk • contribs) 18:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The article's been semi-protected for now, meaning it can't be edited by nonregistered or recently registered users.--Loodog (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Panorama image

I was about to remove the panorama image in the center of the article. It's got huge stitch errors and inconsistent exposure manifested as very visible bands in the sky. There are better LA panoramas if the article really needs one. Thought I'd generate some consensus before doing so? Mfield (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's so bad (the erros require magnification to see), though the frame it's in appears oversized on my browser. What images are you proposing as alternatives? Some may be more tecnhically perfect but have a less interesting vantage point or other failing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the spirit of 'put your money where your mouth is', I just uploaded this:

Los Angeles - Mountains to Ocean

(So I am little biased on this one, but I felt a bit bad about putting the other one down without a viable alternative.) Mfield (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, I like that. What's the vantage point? I'd endorse using that photo. (Is it just my browser, or is there an excessively tall box around the image, both here and on the article?) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The div tag enables you to have a boxed image with an indepenent horizontal scroll that doesn't require using the broswer window scroll bar and scroll the entire page right instead. The box is of a specific size, they are close to the image size here for me in Safari. I have got rid of the padding and extra box around mine above so you can see. Mfield (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who took the prior panorama (hand held camera, with no exposure control), and I like this one better. Parkerdr (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it, too -- lovely sunset colors. Nice work. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to usgs forcast

May it be usefull to have an ext. link:

• United States Geological Survey - Preparedness and Forecast

it´s about UCERF Earthquake Probabilities --Asdfj 20:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why

Why cant this image of Downtown be used File:LA Skyz.jpg

Why does it have to be

Mcanmoocanu, 2 May 2008

Because the second one is better no doubt. It certainly represents LA better for the majority of readers. This has been discussed on Talk before. Suggest (once again) that you look through prior discussion before changing the lead image unilaterally. Mfield (talk) 05:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mfield - the second image shows the general aspect better, while the first image just shows the tops of buildings. However both are better than the night images we sometimes get. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay i agree, but i didnt change it (again). Mcanmoocanu 14:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Big Orange

I added this reference to the first paragraph, just beacause it is my home town. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And, someone deleted it without comment. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Why was Los Angeles built where it is?

Why was Los Angeles Built Where It is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.100.231 (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I would point you to History of Los Angeles, California, but that article doesn't seem to directly address your question. In a nutshell, the Spanish wanted to establish a few secular towns (not missions) to balance out their colonization of California. Los Angeles was probably chosen because it is next to a reliable water supply and in the middle of one of the few large and flat (easy to farm) areas of California accessible to the sea (the primary mode of transportation). However, Los Angeles got big because the people here made it big, not for locational reasons. For example, the port is the biggest economic engine in LA, but there never was a natural harbor. Despite excellent natural harbors in San Francisco and San Diego, the residents of Los Angeles managed to get the federal government to build a giant harbor here too.EmergentProperty (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

224 languages in LA

Sorry, but to me this sounds ridiculous. We should consider rewording, which IMHO should not contain this dubious fact anymore. But first, I would like to hear other's opinions. Tomeasy (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a google search: "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."--Loodog (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What's going on, Loodog? I have changed the statement from 224 languages to at least 224 languages, and then you revert me!!!! You state exactly in your above comment, you show a source where exactly this is written, and in another section below exactly this is written again, and now you revert me. You revert to maintain the nonsensical precise number, just because there is also a source stating this.

After your revert, the text states 224 languages are spoken L.A. Do I really need to explain that this does not make sense at all? I advocate to erase this all together from the lead. Why should we have the same number twice? Tomeasy_talk 14:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Present a source saying "more than 224" in the city and then we'll go from there. The source I've shown above is for LA County.--Loodog (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to make such a statement altogether, appreciating the fact the no institution on earth has the capacity to measure the exact number of different languages in LA. Not only because people are moving in and out, do not register under a statement as to what their languages are, but also because the concept of different languages becomes certainly a matter of definition in such a large group. All that is reasonable to say, IMHO, is that the lingual diversity of LA is extremely high (and maybe use the source for this statement). However, now there is a source claiming that it knows the one and only precise number to this complex question. What shall we do with it?

• I propose to laugh about it, mentioning something reasonable, and thus avoid that others laugh about us.
• You propose to mention the precise number and refer to the source (which is best Wikipedia practice, of course).

In view that my arguments seemingly do not convince you, and technically the statement complies to WP policies, and this was the state of the article before I appeared, and apparently other editors are not bothered, I will leave the article like it is, i.e., a double mentioning of this precise number :-( Tomeasy_talk 16:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know where www.laalmanac.com obtained this quote? I've tried a variety of search engines to see Vyacheslav Ivanov's study on this, but the only thing I'm finding is a study on languages he is doing [1]. Is the Los Angeles Almanac really a reliable source for something like this if we cannot find a study to back it up? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is a very good source to the disputed statement [2]. This is the reference that currently backs the claim (exactly 224 languages) in a later section of the article. I do not want to question the quality of this source in general, I somehow understand User: Loodog that he wants to use it. I just think we should allow ourselves to be more reasonable than a trustful source, if it pretends to know something that cannot be know. Tomeasy_talk 17:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that such an exact number can't be obtained. "224" may have come from the last Census. If you can count the population of a city, you can count the languages those people put in their questionaires. With so precise a number I doubt they're just guessing.--Loodog (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think they can come to a statistically valid number through a census or academic study. I just can't seem to find where the city got that number. The only census numbers I have seen only show very broad categories. Alanraywiki (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles Diversity Rating

I'm confused about the statement that Los Angeles is the most diverse county in the United States. This information is not corroborated by the document the citation links to (Census 2000 Fact Sheet). Also, the wikipedia article on Queens, New York lists Queens as the most diverse county, and links to a New York Times article which cites the 2000 census. Am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.86.48 (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Diversity" is something which is not easily defined. Is someplace that's half black and half white less diverse than someplace that's a third black, a third white, and a third asian? What if it's half white, a quarter black, an eighth asian, and an eighth latino? The census doesn't attempt to quantify diversity in this way (at least not as far as I know), but there are several papers employing differing formulas, none of which are authoritative. As it stands, this article now says "one of the" most diverse places, which I think is an acceptable statement. By the way, Queens may be a county like LA County, but it's only a portion of the NY area whereas LA County contains most of the LA area population. You can't really compare Queens with LA County, which is a problem with the way our census is structured. EmergentProperty (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture in the infobox

It surprises me that currently no picture is in the prominent place. Therefore, I would like to propose to move this picture from the climate section to the infobox. Tomeasy_talk 07:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Spanish pronunciation

I'm new to wikipedia talk, but...

I'm a single-language-English-speaker Angeleno. However, I know there is a different pronunciation of Los Angeles in Spanish than English. The LA wikipedia page used to have a Spanish pronunciation. If this was removed because the Los Angeles only has "one correct pronuniciation," then that should be reconsidered. For example, the "Barcelona" wikipedia page has its pronunication in Catalon and Spanish, both common languages there. Zpowers (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Observe an example like Paris. Sure, the French pronounce it "par-EE", but in an English-language article, the English pronunciation is given.--Loodog (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering why you choose to give Paris as an example here. If you took a look on the article on Paris, you would find that both the English and the Spanish pronunciation are given. Did I misunderstand you somehow, or how should that make jive with your argumentation? Tomeasy_talk 19:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The point was that the article doesn't give every possible pronunciation in every language of the city name. It gives pronunciation in the native language, and, because it's an English article, in English. The Paris article does not give Spanish/Dutch/German/Mandarin pronunciation.--Loodog (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Though, if you're arguing we should have it because the name itself is originally Spanish, you have a point for its inclusion.--Loodog (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sister Cities

I was just wondering if it was smarter to create a new article on the Sister Cities of LA like this one because at the moment the sister city section looks a little cluttered so only keep one or 2 from each geographic region and move the rest to the new article it would look much better IMHO. Taifarious1 03:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Zip Codes

Why do the zip codes here range in the 90xxxs only? (I am speaking of the infobox) Should we also include zip codes of the valley, ie: Encino's 91436 and Tarzana's 91356? LA possibly has more ZIP codes than any other city, but I think we still need to be inclusive of all sectors of the city, including the Valley. Is there a specific reason these are excluded or is it just that we haven't gotten to adding them yet. Please give your opinions on this.

We should include as many zip codes as we can, at least until the listing becomes burdensom. I can't find a list that includes all of the LA zip codes. The PO listing only shows those whose neighborhoods are called "L.A." - and excludes places like Van Nuys. Does nayone have a good source or do we have to compile these by hand, neighborhood by neighborhood? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

this site has Zip codes in LA county with includes zip codes like van nuys subtitled as 'city of la' if that's any help. Mfield (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a big help. One problem it reveals is that the SFV zip codes are not arranged in tidy ranges. Including them all would require an extensive listing, too long for the infobox. Perhaps this infor would be better placed in the List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Name of City

Just a question: On the german article, Los Angeles it says that Felipe de Neve founded LA unter the official name El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Ángeles, while El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles del Río de Porciúncula was widespread but not official. Historians allegedly have found this by exploring documents by Felipe de Neve and Teodoro de Croix. Has anybody further information on the subject? Gamgee (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Almanac is usually reliable. They say:

• ...They named the river Nuestra Señora de los Angeles de la Porciúncula...The settlement came to be known as El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles de Porciúncula or The Town of Our Lady the Queen of Angels of the Little Portion although its official name was simply El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles.[3]

So it appears to be the difference between the official name and the common name derived from the river. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

Population

It has been widespread knowledge that Los Angeles already surpassed the 4 million mark in population, yet this article persists in maintaining it at 3.8

I edited that data once and I get put in the brigg, so maybe someone with more weight, could ya correct that deatil please? Maybe also add the approx Metro population.

KeniKex 21:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, as per WP:USCITY, we only use use Census numbers, We use this for all us cities. No exceptions.--Loodog (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviation

Is it true that Los Angles has the most abbreviated name in the world? 88.110.139.242 (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, but probably impossible to prove.--Loodog (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

SF (San Francisco), NY (New York), DC (Washington), HK (Hong Kong). Not true. EmergentProperty (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Los Angeles, California/1

Can Someone Please Create a Combination Banner Picture ??

i noticed when i looked on the nyc and london wiki page

they both have a pic of various parts of the city combined

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London

IT LOOKS SO COOL !!!

i beg someone to please to the same for the los angeles wiki

here are some places that must be included on the picture :

-Downtown LA (of course)

-Hollywood (sign)

-Century City

-Beverly Hills (Rodeo drive or palm trees)

-Venice or Santa Monica Beach

-or any other areas that might look cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.3.130 (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I BEG SOMEONE TO PLEASE DO THIS ...IT LOOKS SOOOOO COOL

not to mention tourists from all over the world look at this page and i think los angeles needs to have one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.3.130 (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it would look very nice. Ucla90024 (talk) 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, I think it's impossible to make something like that look good, and the images you mention represent a step backwards for Wikipedia. Both of those images look very tacky - like a 1980's infomercial. I beg you NOT to add a picture like that here. If tourists want to see more pictures of LA, they need simply to scroll through the article, and maybe follow a few links. EmergentProperty (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• As both a photographer and an editor, I agree with you there, EmergentProperty - they look more tourist brochure than encyclopedia. Mfield (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with both EmergentProperty and Mfield. A single picture for all cities -- no matter how large they are -- would give a better feel of how cities like LA are not something entirely different from towns like Paderborn or Bend. This would be more in line with what Wikipedia is: not a "Visit (this or that town or country)" website, but an encyclopedia. --Tracerbullet11 (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

-great..now chicago has one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago,_Illinois

SOMEONE NEEDS TO CREATE ONE FOR LOS ANGELES !!!

it might look like a tourist brochure...but who cares it looks very nice... if ppl want information they can just read to find it

its just a picture..i don't see why it matters if it looks like a tourist brochure or not .. there is no reason why los angeles shouldn't have one becuase of this that stupid reason

It shows all of the parts of the city in one pic...i think its very classy...AND LA NEEDS TO HAVE ONE... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.3.130 (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Ucla90024 (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

i would do it myself but i have no clue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.3.130 (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Before calling anyone else's opinions 'stupid', I would suggest you stop shouting that it is 'SOOOO COOL', start correctly indenting and signing your posts and come up with a better argument than that that Chicago has one or that tourists look at this page - this is an encyclopedia not a tourist guide (see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_or_textbook). This is not a one-upmanship contest either. The real argument is whether it will depict the city better than a collection of larger individual pictures for the purposes of an encylopedia? Mfield (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry i didn't mean it that way directly...but it WILL depict the city better

la is a much more beautiful city than new york and chicago so why not have one ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.3.130 (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

oh and now washington dc is added to the list as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.

• Beijing too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing

• I think LA should have one because los angeles is not just downtown !!!

a picture showing downtown, Hollywood,The Hollywood sign,century city,wilshire corridor 
,venice or santa monica  beach...

* La has too many different parts of the city to just have one picture of downtown...so having 
a picture that shows all the  parts of LA would depict the city perfectly !!

• Nice montage! Must be a Bruce Willis fan. I would have preferred a picture of Eva Longoria Parker. Ucla90024 (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol sorry, i didnt even realise there was a discussion about a montage. I just thought the infobox would look better with one so I made one. Im not that much of a Bruce Willis fan but it was the best hollywood walk of fame picture i could find :D Taifarious1 06:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Beautiful !!!...Thank You So Much !!!!

.....although i think the 1st and the 3rd picture in the middle row should both be replaced with a picture of venice/santa monica beach,palm trees or century city

i don't think the city hall picture and the other pic of the us bank tower are neccessary since the first row pic is a panorama pic of downtown..

but i love the panorama pic of downtown...the bruce willis star...and the hollwood sign !!!

i just think the us bank tower and the city hall pic need to be replaced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.3.130 (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• As the person who created the NYC montage, I'm really glad to see other cities using this format. I only have one question though: why Bruce Willis? --Jleon (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I didnt specifically go searching for Bruce Willis, it was the picture of the Hollywood Walk Of Fame I could find with the best resolution, I don't mind who was on it, its just happened to be him lol. Taifarious1 08:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the new picture. Except Rodeo is located in the City of Beverly Hills. Hopefully the life guard station is not the ones in Santa Monica. Ucla90024 (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks I absolutely love the new picture...THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LISTENING TO ME..IT LOOKS SO BEAUTIFUL...thanks alot

PERFECT ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.3.130 (talk) 07:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not perfect. If we have to have a combo-banner that's fine, but could it please be accurate? Rodeo Drive is in Beverly Hills, which is a separate city from Los Angeles. Another photo would be more appropriate. I would suggest the port, Century City, or a typical street of LA houses (Westside, Fairfax, Hollywood Hills, or South Central). EmergentProperty (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, two of the pictures are of Hollywood. One is enough. I agree that the port is important. The Disney Center is also iconic, though it's downtown too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Isn't Disney Center in Burbank? How about Griffith Observatory? Ucla90024 (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The concert hall, not the studio. And yes, Griffith Observatory, would be another great choice. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

this one

Does this new one meet your standards? Taifarious1 09:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Nice. Maybe we can have one for Los Angeles County as well. Beverly Hills can be included. The desert, mountain, the ocean, ports, airport all can be included. Jerry Dunphy said: "from the desert to the sea to all of southern California" Ucla90024 (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• I don't want to be too demanding, but that new one doesn't look so good. Trying to squeeze three pics in the middle makes each too small. I'd say drop Disney Hall and make Griffith Observatory larger and/or shrink the image to show more. Or keep Disney and drop the observatory, either way. Also, there's too much sky on the Hollywood sign image and too little on the top skyline pic (it'd be nice to see the mountain tops). The top and bottom image don't have to be the same size. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• PLEASE KEEP THE CURRENT ONE...IT'S PERFECT !!!!

THE NEW ONE IS HORRIBLE !!! 

rodeo drive is in la county which ALMOST EVERYONE considers to be los angeles...so it's fine

PLEASE KEEP THE CURRENT PICTURE...IT IS VERY NICE !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.3.130 (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded a NEW one of the previous without the concert hall and changed the grond:sky ratios on both the top and bottom pictures and i have placed all 3 options into the galley below. So we can discuss any further improvements or pick one to put on the page. Taifarious1 00:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• 
  First
• Second
  Second
• 
  Third
• 
  Fourth

• #1 is on the City of Los Angeles page, and #3 is now on County of Los Angeles page. So, they are fine for now. Ucla90024 (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding #3: Is it possible to make the bottom image, the sign, narrower and the top image, the skyline, taller? It'd be nice to see the bottom os the buildings, but we don't need to see so much hillside below the sign. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Re #5: Now we're cooking with gas! That looks much better. Thanks for persevering and accomodating over-involved editors like me. Cheers, ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

S'ok ;) It's great photoshop practice! Taifarious1 10:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please keep the current one on the page !!!..it looks perfect...all the other ones are very bland !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.3.130 (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I Think There Aren't Enough Pictures

I personally think that there should be more pictures of the nightscape and general landscape. i would say at least 10 more pictures. It wont make the page look cluttered. Besides, LA is known for doing big stuff and i think our page needs to display that as well. Or as another option have a link to another page with more pictures of LA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.80.33 (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a continuous stream of pictures on the right side of the screen when looking at this page. I'd say that's even more than enough. The pictures would look fine at a 800×600 monitor, but they don't on a 1920×1440. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 19:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the pay scale like in Los Angeles?

What is the pay scale like in Los Angeles? Ranging from someone who has no college education to someone who does. What is the minimum wage like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.25.194 (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I don't think this is something you should ask on Wikipedia. Maybe you should try city-data.com instead.

But since I've been living here for fifteen years... I'll just go ahead and answer this question.

The minimum wage is just like the rest of California at $7.50 an hour. I think you're assuming that it must be glamorous since we live in Los Angeles, but I've spent these fifteen years living in a certain city in San Gabriel Valley and we still have baristas at Starbucks, people working at our McDonald's chains, Subways, Togo's, frozen yogurt places, and so on. People still complain about their job. You don't get paid more to serve coffee or burgers just because you live here.

Like other major world cities, there is a lot of pressure to go to college amongst the kids. Namely, high school kids. Why? There are various reasons, but one of them is that you can't survive in a big city like this if you don't have cash. You can't survive on minimum wage either. If you need an example, I don't even live in what we consider the rich and affluent part of LA (Wikipedia says the average family in my city makes just less than $50,000 a year), and in my city even a cheap house with just two bedrooms goes for at least $550,000.

If you have a college degree, good for you. You can work downtown in a big company or start your own business, as there are many here. You'll make lots of money and you can live in a better area of this city, like San Marino or West Hollywood. You can even move out to Orange County (usually there's better weather and it's newer down there).

I didn't really get what you were asking or why I even answered it, and I'm not sure I answered your question correctly, but here goes. Lady Galaxy 19:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Name?

Hello,

The article in the German Wikipedia states that it is only some kind of Urban Legend, that the original name of the city was "El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles del Río de Porciúncula", instead researchers had found information that the official name was "only" "El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Ángeles"; I now ask myself which information is correct. Thanks for your help, 217.235.232.55 (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The source for the German article, now removed is The Settlement of Los Angeles, which says:

• Contrary to the popular belief that the original name of Los Angeles was El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora La Reina de Los Angeles de Porciuncula (The Town of Our Lady the Queen of the Angels of the (River) Porciuncula), scholars have determined from official documents of Governor Felipe de Neve, Commandant General de la Croix and Viceroy Bucareli that the settlement was simply named El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles.

I don't understand why this bit of trivia is so fascinating. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"the most supported teams not from Los Angeles."

An IP editor has insisted on the following text in the Sports section:[4]

The most supported teams that are not from Los Angeles are the Dallas Cowboys and Chivas de Guadalajara.

I've reverted, but don't have time to deal with it tonight beyond that. IP editor, if you have a source for this, please replace the text, showing a source, or discuss it here. --Abd (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Total speculation, and you're going to be hard-pressed to find a reliable source. You were correct in reverting. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

There is currently a proposal on the table to amend the Wikipedia naming conventions for US cities to follow the AP Stylebook's suggested names. This would effectively move a number of US city articles currently on the list, so Los Angeles, California would be moved to Los Angeles. To comment on this discussion, please go here. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Really, it's taken this long for this to come around again?! :) Mfield (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been discussed here several times and rejected repeatedly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on exemption of Los Angeles from AP style guide

Directly related to the move discussion, please see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(settlements)#Los_Angeles. rootology (C)(T) 18:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, as far as I can tell, the consensus in March was to make Los Angeles a subdisambiguation page, but others felt that was a violation of policy. It clearly needs to be a disambiguation page, as the most common use is either the Post Office designation or the metro area, neither of which is this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

It is not at all clear that there is anything close to having a consensus about Los Angeles needing to be a disambiguation page (or a redirect to a disambiguation page). But the strawpoll below should establish this one way or another. So far you're the only one who seems to feel this way, and if Vegaswikian participates I'm sure he'll agree as well. But I'm really curious whether there is even one more editor who agrees with you two, much less enough to establish something close to consensus. --Serge (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Strawpoll #6: Should Los Angeles be, or redirect to, city or dab page?

It would be helpful to to know how regular editors of this article feel about the following question:

In your opinion, ideally, what article should be at Los Angeles, and why?

Please answer:

(a) A redirect to the article about the city of Los Angeles should be at Los Angeles.

(b) The article about the city of Los Angeles should be at Los Angeles.

(c) A redirect to the Los Angeles disambiguation page should be at Los Angeles.

(d) The Los Angeles disambiguation page should be at Los Angeles.

(e) Other: None of the above should be at Los Angeles. Instead _________________ (please fill in the blank in your answer) should be at Los Angeles.

If you would kindly answer a, b, c, d or e (plus your fill-in-the-blank answer for e), and provide reasoning, that would be appreciated. Thanks.

Oh, the reason I'm asking is opinions have been made on this question, and I'm wondering how popular they are. --Serge (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Leave it the way it is. It ain't broken, don't fix it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming this a vote for (a). Thank you. --Serge (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• I agree. Serge, that's known as beating a dead horse. Try making some constructive contributions to the encyclopedia like uploading some photographs or digging up some citations on Google Books, like I do. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Dead horse? I'm just trying to establish whether there is any kind of consensus for making Los Angeles a dab page (c, d). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe any poll in the past has even tried to determine this. I'm assuming yours is a vote for (a). Thank you. --Serge (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• Disputed. (c), (d), or a subdisambiguation page should be at Los Angeles. (a) (the present status) will be changed to (b) by Serge, with or without consensus. The city is clearly not the most common use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Disputed? What are you disputing? (a) will be changed to (b) by me? With or without consensus? What are you talking about? For the record, do you have any preference between (c) and (d)? Thank you. --Serge (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Mild preference for (c), but I don't consider redirects that important unless a non-disambiguation article ever is at Los Angeles. As for your actions, you have moved City, State to City against consensus in the past, but I shouldn't assume you'll do so in the future. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, I'll count it as a vote for (c). I think you might have me confused with someone else, unless there was an incident where I thought that consensus had been established and acted accordingly. At any rate, I have left U.S. city page moves to admins for years, and I assure you it's safe to assume I will continue to do so in the future. Thanks. --Serge (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• (b) There is only one primary meaning for this term, very clearly established by WP standards, and no reason to disambiguate it. Of course the Los Angeles article itself should make quite clear the relations between the various different entities which are covered by that meaning, with onward links to articles on those other entities if they exist.--Kotniski (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(b), preferably. (a) acceptable Almost everyone in the English-speaking (and most non-English speaking) world will assume you mean Los Angeles, CA when you say you're off to or from or live in Los Angeles. There is that whole thing about preferring the most common name...... --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 18:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note to Serge - stop speaking for other people. If they intend to "vote" for (a) or (b) or (c) or whatever they will say as much. Do not presume to decide for people what they mean - if someone is ambiguous about it, leave it up to the closing administrator to determine the consensus. Thanks. Shereth 18:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not speaking for other people. I'm informing them (and anyone else who reads these comments) how I am interpreting their comments, FWIW. If I'm misunderstanding, this gives them the opportunity to correct me. How admins interpret all this is up to them. Unless you're fixing an obvious typo or something, please do not edit other people's comments. So, do you have a preference with respect to the a-d choices above? Thanks. --Serge (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I am refraining from expressing my opinion on this matter. If you insist on "interpreting" other people's statements (to what end I have no clue), please do not bold them as this creates the impression you are selecting a response for them. Thanks. Shereth 20:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, folks. Not productive.--Loodog (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry, Loodog, I realize this is off track, but I do want to explain my actions above to Shereth and anyone else who may question them. Shereth, since human minds do not comprehend meaning in the literal terms in which we write (which at best are an imperfect approximation of our thoughts), anything anyone ever writes must be interpreted by whoever reads it. Problems in communication occur when something one person writes is interpreted differently from how it was intended. A common method for making such miscommunication less likely is to restate what one understood another to mean. That's all I did. Clarifying meaning like that is a good thing, because it allows for confirming that meaning was accurately understood, as well as bringing attention to when it wasn't. Hope that makes sense. I used bold to highlight my understanding of their choices precisely to bring attention to them, in case I got something wrong, so that the misunderstanding is more likely to be noticed and corrected. I hope that makes sense. --Serge (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• (a) or (b) with slight preference for (a) (b). I couldn't tell you why, but "Los Angeles, California" seems more like the full proper common name for the city. I have no rational basis for this so don't think too much of it. Los Angeles is an alpha world city like New York and is easily identified internationally by city name only. It is certain enough that the city is the primary usage for "Los Angeles". People don't mean the county, the airport, the metro area, when they say or write "Los Angeles".--Loodog (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• (b) preferable, with (a) also acceptable but less desirable. Based on my rationale listed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)#Los Angeles, "Los Angeles" is no more ambiguous than "Chicago", "London", "New York City" or "Boston" when it comes to ambiguity between the city, downtown region, and metro area. But obviously (just as in the previously listed 4 cases) the city of Los Angeles is still by far the primary usage. A dab page would not be at all beneficial in this case, as it would just redirect the majority of readers who are looking for the city to the wrong page when they type in "Los Angeles", not to mention the fact that, as noted above, "Los Angeles, California" is no less ambiguous than "Los Angeles". I completely disagree with the claim that "the city is clearly not the most common use", as the fact that "Los Angeles" can refer to 7 topics does not mean that one of them cannot be primary, and there is really no evidence to suggest that the metro area and not the city is the primary topic. Also note that choice (c) (which I, for the record, in no way support) is really against policy, per WP:DAB#NAME; if "Los Angeles" were to redirect to a dab page based on the asusmption that there is no primary topic for the use of the term, then it should just be the title of that dab page. Cheers, Rai•me 21:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• (b) When most people (in and outside the US) refer to Los Angeles, they're referring to the city itself. Los Angeles County is related to the city, but the article about that should be at Los Angeles County, California, requiring no disambiguation. An article about downtown is at Downtown Los Angeles, also requiring no disambiguation. Clarifying statements and links to these other articles can be accomplished with links at the top of the article page. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• (b) or (d). I won't enter into the discussion about what the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is here. If the primary topic is the city, we should have Los Angeles about the city, and Los Angeles (disambiguation). If the primary topic is not the city, we should have Los Angeles linking to the article about the city, which I would prefer to have at Los Angeles (city), City of Los Angeles or similar. I do understand that the "place, state" formula pretty much implies a city, but who among our readers will know that? Maybe most Americans, but who else? If Los Angeles were a disambiguation page and one of the links were Los Angeles, California, people would be confused as to whether the other (main) meanings are not also in California. I would accept (a) if there was agreement to consistently have all U.S. cities at "city, state", but that does not seem to be the case. It's not useful to merely disambiguate from other things when those other things are also in California. -- Jao (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• There is a convention that all US cities be at "city, state", with the possible exception of those named in the AP Style guide. See WP:NC:CITY#United States. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• I am aware of that. But if exceptions are allowed, then I see no reason that LA shouldn't be one, per the arguments above. -- Jao (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• (b) Obviously the city is the primary topic. The target already redirects to the article, so this should be uncontroversial. Use of "Los Angeles" in the article on the metro area (Greater Los Angeles Area) does not merit the article on the city being disambiguated. It's obviously on a completely different subject, and if that were the standard, then Toronto would be at "Toronto, Ontario" because of Greater Toronto Area. --Pwnage8 (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually no about Toronto having the same issue. A different naming convention applies there. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Naming conventions don't matter here, because both cities are the primary use. LA would be just like Toronto if the target was the article's name. And for the less-known cities, the different naming convention, interestingly, doesn't cause the headaches there will supposedly be if the whole batch of major US cities are moved. --Pwnage8 (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• (d) then (c) and finally (a). The question comes down to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If you are talking about cities, then it is clear that what you mean. However when you say LA what does the person mean? The city, the county, the metro area, the downtown area, the Hollywood sign? The problem is that I don't believe anyone can show that there is a primary topic here. That's because the usage of LA is by default ambiguous. This should not really be a discussion about where the city article belongs, but what is intended when referring to LA. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

But the same applies to almost every city and many other topics too. It's not like LA city and LA metro area and LA downtown are separate topics that just happen to have the same name. For someone looking for information on "Los Angeles", probably all of these topics are going to be relevant, and they should all be covered (at least in summary) in one article, with links onward to any more detailed articles that exist about any of them. This is how it's done all over WP; no reason for Los Angeles or other American cities to be any different.--Kotniski (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What is an Alpha World City??

Rddb (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reference for what a "alpha world city" is? The link is to the World city page which doesn't even contain the word alpha on it. I think the article would read better without mentioning these sort of designations, that are virtually unknown among the general population, in the opening paragraph of a general article.