Talk:List of districts and neighborhoods in Los Angeles

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Old comments

Shouldn't Silver Lake and Sunset Junction be under Hollywood Area not Rampart Area?

Well thats somewhat subjective, although the Hollywood border is well east of Sunset/Hollywood boulevard split most would place the border with East Hollywood at that intersection. If the gentrification keeps up the northern parts of Rampart can be renamed New Westside.

Rampart Area generally refers to areas within the Rampart Division of the LAPD. Silver Lake is in the Northeast Division, not the Rampart Division. nobodynose 20:55, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with "nobodynose". The term "Rampart Area" in Los Angeles is exclusively associated with the Rampart Division of the LAPD, and areas outside the Rampart Division are not considered part of the Rampart Area.

New "Mid-City Los Angeles" article

I'm starting an article, Mid-City Los Angeles, to describe the area of the city bounded by La Cienega, Melrose, Western, and the Santa Monica Freeway. --Slightlyslack 09:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the name is not strictly backed by verifiable sources becareful because there are people out there that may just delete it, and i'm not referring to me. --Daniel Romero Cruz 19:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greater LA

This would be more helpful if it covered not just the LA city limits, but LA county. City vs. district vs. neighborhood matters very little to most people, and it seems odd not to include things like Burbank or Pasadena.

It's a tricky issue. We struggle a lot with deciding how to fit articles and categories into the L.A. city/L.A. county/L.A. region, and vice versa. In this instance, Los Angeles County, California has a comprehensive list of cities and unincorporated places in the county, and is linked from this article, but it does not include districts of cities in the county. I suppose we can do a better job of organizing and interlinking the various lists of places. We might also create some kind of huge all-inclusive L.A. County places list, with both cities and their neighborhoods, CDPs, real estate names ("Beverly Hills Post Office"), etc. It'd be dull reading, but useful as a reference. The information does not change quickly. -Will Beback 09:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information is also available in the categories. Category:Los Angeles County communities covers everything. -Will Beback 09:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what is the neutrality issue?

I'm not seeing the discussion that goes with the NPOV tag? Lisamh 18:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the race/ethnicity section as being biased or anything, though the language could be more professional/encyclopedic. Maybe it needs to acknowledge Jewish presence? Haonhien 08:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the bias, it focuses on racial stereotypes instead of what is the reality of the city. --Daniel Romero Cruz 00:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arranging images

Can someone help clean up the orders of images so they don't "bleed" into other neighborhoods? Tagging is pain in the ass. ~~

Map request

It would help a lot to have a map showing at least approximate neighborhood boundaries, and other major features. -- Beland 01:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a great one at the Library of Texas collection, a little old though, but gives you the general idea. There is also a highway map on commons --Astrokey44 03:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that map doesn't show a single district or neighborhood of the city of Los Angeles. -Will Beback · † · 03:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea there was map request for this page, anyways I created this map but when i upload it the quality of it suffers immensely. I have tried to upload 2 versions, one with names and one without. The one with no names acquires black rectangles at certain places and the one with names has the names distorted. So far this is a rough map and am hoping that we can improve the quality and get rid of the glitches. Jorobeq 22:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ive created and uploaded a new map. If you have any suggestion, criticisms, etc, please let me know. Jorobeq 22:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would also help if the map wasn't from 1970. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.25.110 (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a map here, but it includes more than just the city neighborhoods. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(15 years later) Where is the map? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flower District

I added the Flower District reference to the list of neighborhood areas. Am unskilled in Wiki and asking for others to add info re: the various flower market major locations, thanks.- xibee —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xibee (talk • contribs) 19:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links - List

Hidden as long, unreferenced list. Click to show.

* Sign exists, though the community has been clarified as the “Arts District”

** Not on original list of June 2005.

*** Green; joint with LA County

**** Lincoln Heights has two version of the sign, but it’s still one community.

Officially designated communities where the signs are missing, cannot be found (have yet to be photographed), or have yet to be installed:]]

Source: http://lacitynerd.blogspot.com/2007/05/officially-designated-communities-of.html jengod 15:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Village should be included in the main article. ThreeRocks (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the article to just "Districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles"

Renaming the article to "Districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles" is more appropriate than having an article devoted to a list. The article pretty much grew into an encyclopedic review of Los Angeles communities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infernalfox (talk • contribs) 23:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. But needs cleaning up. Ucla90024 (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrangement of neighborhoods and districts

It says in the article "the city (of L.A.) has not officially defined the boundaries of those communities". If so, which criteria follows the mentioning of neighborhoods and their arrangement to larger city areas in this article? I don't want to be too critical about this, but I'm just interested and it seems to me, that this is not totally clarified in the text. --Gamgee (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morningside Park should be listed as an area within Inglewood California. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:3301:2400:2847:A65F:2165:55E3 (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Size of the San Fernando Valley

The San Fernando Valley section of this article says, "It comprises about forty percent of the city's area and population." If you go to the San Fernando Valley article, it says, "More than half of the land area of the city of Los Angeles lies within the San Fernando Valley." Obviously both statements can't be true. Just from looking at a map I'm inclined to believe the second statement, but I'm not going to change the article just based on that. Hopefully someone knows where to find a reliable source for this.
Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 21:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparing apples and oranges. The first state how much of the Valley comprises LA proper; the second states how much of the Valley is within LA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infernalfox (talk • contribs) 22:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? The second statement is clearly talking about how much of Los Angeles is within the Valley, not how much of the Valley is in L.A. I think you read it backwards.
Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 21:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I finally bothered to look it up, or rather I calculated it myself using the land area numbers from this article and this web page. Turns out, 47.9% of Los Angeles is in the San Fernando Valley. I'll fix both pages.
Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 13:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

City Council Districts

I find this entry a mess. I came here to rapidly determine in which city counsel district I reside in order to navigate to my incumbent councilman's website. For those growing numbers of us who rely heavily on Wiki, this title is an obvious starting point for such a search. However, the term "district" is used so offhand here that it isn't even clear if the red boundary lines on the map view "larger map" represent Los Angeles' chartered governmental districts, zip codes, area code regions or what. The left column list provides traditional names, but doesn't indicate each district's official number designation. A visitor might even want to know locate "the 6th District" sooner than discover its traditional name. Where is this information? Can anybody look at that map and easily point out, say, the 4th District? After all, the title of this entry includes the keyword "districts." Lastly, it would be a great asset to include links to each District's official website, assuming incumbents don't change them... Or, if so, a search function script could work in the background to auto-search for the current site's URL and reset the link to it. Mykstor (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want information on city council districts, your best bet would be to look for the official website of the Los Angeles City Council. The word "district" can refer to more than just official voting districts, and this article is about areas of Los Angeles that have their own names. By the way, that map is from 1970 and the red lines are freeways.
Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 12:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it up for you. Here's the official website of the City of Los Angeles (link) and here's the City Council section (link). The first link has a box called "Neighborhood Resources" where you can type in your address to find out what Council District you live in. The second link has contact information and links to boundary maps.
Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 12:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been refashioned since the above was written. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use Mapping L.A. as reliable source?

Serious suggestion: Use the L.A. Times Mapping L.A. pages to define the L.A. City and County neighborhoods within Wikipedia. http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/. I would be glad to start the makeover (through article rewrites and redireccts) if this procedure gains consensus here or elsewhere. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support—I think that this is an excellent idea. It would be good to have an agreed-on single standard for neighborhood boundaries and the LAT understands the issues and takes them seriously. I once had someone tell me on a talk page that West Los Angeles started at Alvarado Street, which is not OK. I will be happy to follow your lead and help out with such a makeover.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any geographic region you would prefer to begin with? I have already done Sunland-Tujunga, Los Angeles and Hyde Park, Los Angeles, although there is great room for improvement in both those articles. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None in particular. What exactly did you do to those articles using mapping LA? I couldn't quite sort it out from the page history.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

question: Are there alternatives to this website? The Los Angeles Times is a reliable source, but are there other definitions out there to consider? For instance does Los Angeles County have legal definitions, or the City of Los Angeles, or other legal entities?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cities are defined by their boundaries, so there are many reliable sources for determining just where the city limits lie. Communities, neighborhoods, home-owning areas, etc., within the city of L.A. (or within the county for that matter) don't have defined boundaries. That's why the L.A. Times decided to do its own research and issue its own guidelines, which I suppose all its reporters and editors follow now. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No support. Thomas Guide has its own districting and the official visitors map maker has its own. When LA Times given information of its errors, Doug Smith (Jack Smith's son) will not make the changes. Ucla90024 (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The LAT list was developed with a great deal of input from all kinds of people, including local historians and neighborhood councils. Not everybody was satisifed, but, really, the LAT list is now the de facto list of city and county neighborhoods. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. This is interesting [1] But the main link above says it is not vetted with local input yet outside the City. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure what Alanscottwalker means by "the main link above." GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first link in this section, which is the main page of the suggested reference (viz, "Now we expand that conversation to the entire county.") -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, back to the original purpose of this thread: I think that Mapping L.A. can be used as a reliable source, but there could be other sources as well, like the Thomas Guide, although Thomas does not give community boundaries. What are not reliable sources are homeowners' association blogs and other less-than-reliable sources. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Westlake

MacArthur Park (formerly Westlake Park) is a park and is located within the Westlake district. It is not a district. And actually Pico Union is located within Westlake district, same as Temple-Beaudry district. All noted in the Westlake gneral plan. Unfortunately people seem to know better, especially those who are not living in Los Angeles. Ucla90024 (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are suggesting be done. ???? GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the addition of MacArthur Park to the list because it is neither a neighborhood nor a district. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MacArthur Park was not an addition, it was merged into Westlake where it belongs since MacArthur Park was Westlake Park. How about Elysian Heights, Elysian Park, Solano Canyon, and Elysian Valley? Aren't all the same? Then there is Edendale, which is now part of Echo Park. Ucla90024 (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This list has a lot of unsourced text in it. I propose to challenge and remove such text in 30 days; that is, on or after May 19, 2013. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetize?

I would like to alphabetize this list to make it easier for people to find any given neighborhood on it? Does anybody object? GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good. I was going to do some of that earlier today when it popped up on my watchlist, but I got so freaked out over some of the new additions that I couldn't deal with it and had to send something to AfD stat.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth: Who needs such a bare-bones list? Isn't that what categories are for? --Gamgee (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. There are way too many districts and neighborhoods, small and big. People just throw out names. Ucla90024 (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to kindly ask, what's the benefit of such an article compared to Category:Neighborhoods in Los Angeles, California? Besides, if it says List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles, why include other areas in Los Angeles County? --Gamgee (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. That means somebody is paying attention. Well, for one thing, (1) this extant list should have WP:Sources for everything that is on it. Categories don't have that distinction. For another, (2) I believe that to find a category, the reader has to type "Category:" in the search box, which most people don't know about. In fact, having been editing Los Angeles articles for, oh, six years or thereabouts, this is the first time I have ever been aware of such a description of L.A. neighborhoods. As for "Other areas in Los Angeles County," (3), yes, you are correct, and that should properly be under the "See also" section, which I will do immediately on posting this. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leads in articles about Los Angeles neighborhoods

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was that the lead section of these articles should follow the approach set out in MOS:LEAD, which is that lead should summarise the main points of the article, and that emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable secondary sources.

There was a clear consensus to reject a formulaic approach, and to treat each case on its own merits. That means if the reliable secondary sources emphasise the ethnic or racial composition of a district, then the lead should convey that fact. Otherwise, it belongs in the body of the article.

This will mean that in some cases the ethnic composition may feature prominently in the leas, whereas on other cases it may be entirely absent from the lead.

(I closed this discussion per a request at WP:AN/RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Procedural comment. Two editors expressed concern about the confusing format of this RFC. Their fears that it would impede consensus-formation turned out to be a little pessimistic, but they were right to voice concerns. WP:RFC stresses that those opening an RFC should keep the RfC statement simple and succinct, whereas this opening statement was long and confusing. WP:RFC also includes an example of how to layout an RFC, and it would be helpful if editors tried to follow that proven format. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference of opinion concerning the wording of lead sections of articles about Los Angeles neighborhoods.

Specifically, there have been objections raised as to how and when it is appropriate to include the ethnic composition of a neighborhood in the lead. On the other hand, there is an opinion that such a description can be a valid part of the introduction. (The reasoning for both opinions is given below in the discussion.)

Several neighborhood articles have featured leads that opened the lead with the name of the neighborhood followed by a quantitative description of its population. For example: Century City is a 176-acre (712,000-m2) affluent commercial and residential district in the West Los Angeles region of Los Angeles County, California.[1] The 5,900+ residents make up an older-aged, high-income, 82.5% white, well-educated population.

Objection: only highlighting percentage of whites is ethnic or racial bias

An objection was raised by one user of the need for several of these articles to "disproportionately highlight the white population as ethnic or racial bias." On this article as on many, the white population is highlighted in the lead. This action was challenged as ethnic or racial bias because it was argued that this practice unfairly highlighted the white population as the marker for how desirable an area might be or some other improper purpose for an encyclopedia. Moreover, it excluded other racial categories and repeated information already found in the demographics section of an article. The question is what is gained from highlighting whites over another in the lead when it is nothing particularly notable about that area?

For example, it was said, that several areas of Los Angeles are known for it being a hub of a particular group, e.g. Sawtelle for Japanese community, Pico-Robertson for Jewish people, Pico-Union for recent latino immigrants or Pacific Palisades for having the highest concentration of white residents in the City of Los Angeles. These practices were not objected to because they were notable characteristics. It is having several articles starting with the lead of % of white people that were objected when they is nothing particularly notable about it other than a just one of several neighborhoods of having a significant number of whites.

Defense: (Insert here main argument for keeping this practice)

This proposal is pretty wrong-headed. A lead (or lede) is supposed to serve "as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." Whatever is in the article should be summarized, so if the racial composition is included in the article and the essence of that composition is important, then the measurement of that composition should be part of the lead. It cannot be denied that the racial composition of any neighborhood is important to that neighborhood and to the city at large, therefore if the racial characteristics are mentioned in the story (as they should be) then they should also be a part of the lead (so that the reader can quickly grasp exactly what kind of a neighborhood it is). This is not a matter of "good" or "bad," but a simple description of the facts.

The same reasoning goes for the rest of the lead: It should sum up the important aspects of the story, no matter what they are. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Objection: focus on population statistics makes a lead seem like an investment brochure

An objection was raised by another user of the need for the lead to highlight population statistics as being "the fact that same info is presented immediately below obviates need for repetition -- unless high-end real-estate salesmen are Wikipedia's target audience."

The article lead challenged read as: East Hollywood is a densely populated, low-income neighborhood of 78,000+ residents in Central Los Angeles, California. Almost two-thirds of the people living there were born outside the United States and 90% were renters. In 2000 the neighborhood had high percentages of never-married people and of single parents.

The objecting user changed the lead to: East Hollywood is a densely populated neighborhood of 78,000+ residents in the central region of Los Angeles, California. It is notable for being the site of Los Angeles City College, Barnsdall Park and a hospital district. There are seven public and five private schools, as well as a branch of the Los Angeles Public Library and three hospitals.

This action was challenged because the user believed that highlighting the foreign born population and the renters in the lead was improper for an encyclopedia article because it highlighted unfairly those pieces of information most useful for real estate investment purposes at the cost of more important and more telling features of the neighborhood such as landmarks, sights, and notable institutions. The question is should Wikipedia highlight population statistics, particularly those most suited for investment purposes, as part of a lead at the cost of leaving out other non-quantifiable characteristics of a neighborhood? Are the characters for a neighborhood have a renter base or a foreign born population more important than its sights, landmarks and notable institutions?

Defense: (Insert here main argument for keeping this practice)

The population characteristics are the most important part of a neighborhood. Without the people liviing there, well, there is really no neighborhood, is there? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal (number if there are several)

A neighborhood article lead should begin with a brief introduction of the neighborhood highlighting only those most notable features for which a neighborhood is known in a multi-faceted sense not just population characteristics (top 3 or so features). What is a neighborhood most notable for? This can be answered by pulling from newspaper articles or tour guides. While it should have a source, the information in the lead should really come from the information described below the lead in the article itself. Moreover, it should not simply highlight an ethnic group being the majority in an area but should only highlight an ethnic group if that ethnic group makes the area obviously notable.

Thus, the article should take a multi-faceted approach in defining what a neighborhood is: not only its population but its sights, landmarks, points of reference and unique non-quantifiable characteristics. And, it should focus only on the most notable or obvious features in the lead.

Examples:

NOT East Hollywood is a densely populated, low-income neighborhood of 78,000+ residents in Central Los Angeles, California. Almost two-thirds of the people living there were born outside the United States and 90% were renters. In 2000 the neighborhood had high percentages of never-married people and of single parents.

BUT East Hollywood is a densely populated neighborhood of 78,000+ residents in the central region of Los Angeles, California. It is notable for being the site of Los Angeles City College, Barnsdall Park and a hospital district. There are seven public and five private schools, as well as a branch of the Los Angeles Public Library and three hospitals.

NOT Century City is a 176-acre (712,000-m2) affluent commercial and residential district in the West Los Angeles region of Los Angeles County, California.[1] The 5,900+ residents make up an older-aged, high-income, 82.5% white, well-educated population.

BUT Century City is a 176-acre (712,000-m2) affluent commercial and residential district in the West Los Angeles region of Los Angeles County, California.[1] It is notable for being the home of several skyscrapers defining the westside skyline and a business hub for the Westside including offices of several movie pictures studios, and banks. It is also home to a Westfields mall and adjoining residential neighborhood.

NOT Pico-Union is a densely populated, low-income, youthful, 85.4% Latino, mostly immigrant neighborhood in Central Los Angeles, California. Historic in character and undergoing a renewal program, the neighborhood is home to two high schools and seven other schools, as well as a branch public library. It is the site of the long-established private Angelus-Rosedale Cemetery.

BUT Pico-Union is a densely populated, low-income, mostly youthful Latino immigrant neighborhood in Central Los Angeles. Historic in character and undergoing a renewal program, the neighborhood is home to two high schools and seven other schools, as well as a branch public library. It is the site of the long-established private Angelus-Rosedale Cemetery.

This Request for Comment aims for a full discussion of what should go into the lead section of a Wikipedia article about Los Angeles neighborhoods; for example, eschewing any attempt to show how "desirable" an area is for visiting/investing/home purchasing purposes, etc. Therefore, please state your opinions below in a free-form style, without using the oppose or support labels. This is a discussion, and not a vote.

The above was a joint RFC by User:Daniel E. Romero and User:GeorgeLouis.

per WP:LEAD - the lead should present the main concepts in the article, which should in turn proportionately reflect the mainstream of the academic publishings about the subject. (and this format of an RfC is pretty much ensured to be a disaster in determining what the consensus of the community is and being able to apply it. - i pity the admin tasked with closing it.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TRPOD, this format is crazy. Also i concur per WP:LEAD. A good example would be Chinatown, Liverpool, where the demographics are significant to the subject. {Cesdeva (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)}[reply]
I agree with TRPOD and Cesdeva, the lead of each article should in principle turn on the contents of the main body of the article, which in turn should turn on what the best reliable sources on the balance say about the subject of the article. If sources tend to discuss the ethnic makeup of a certain part of town, then let's mention that. I wrote "in principle" above to allow for a case where sources charateristically discuss LA overall in terms of the ethnic makeup of its different parts, in which case it could be decided to disclose the makeup of each part, but I'm not aware of this being a practice in sources. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TRPoD and others above, whom I take to be saying that the lead should reflect the content of the article which should be determined by the sources, and that therefore these decisions should be made on a per article basis. If racial composition is to be discussed at length it should be discussed at length in sources. E.g. probably mention racial breakdown for Koreatown, not so much for East Hollywood. Hancock Park, now, might keep its statement about how many white people are there, but only after some material is added to the body of the article about the restrictive covenants and cross-burnings that characterize the history of the place and the effects of that history that are still visible in the demographics (this is all sourceable, obviously).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; I agree with the line of reasoning per GeorgeLouis above. Also: the population characteristics are important. If the neighborhood is un-notable for anything else (say, in the case of a "bedroom community"), we still have the population and demographics, and that may well be all that can be summarized into the Lead. I also think, however, that if there are other notable aspects to the neighborhood/community (such as in the example above) they should be mentioned also, per Lede; there is room for both. One shouldn't take precedence over the other, as long as: the items mentioned are either notable on their own (in which case they should have their own article, or, at minimum, be red linked) or of such import to the neighborhood that reliable sourcing can clearly verify them as such. Regards; GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 16:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutral notification of discussion at Talk:Eastside Los Angeles

About where the East side starts. Perhaps watchers of this page have an opinion?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it's the LA River and Pasadena Fwy. Ucla90024 (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation is on the article talk page here: Talk:Eastside_Los_Angeles#New_definition_of_East_Side.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilshire Park

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Current authors realise they need to improve the article (lack of references, etc.) and have asked (OTRS 2016032010006501) for it to be moved to Draft for improving and review. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint

The Wilshire Park page has been redirected to Koreatown. All attempts to restore the page have been suppressed by the editor of the Ktown page, with warring and a false complaint about "conflict of interest." The editor has been bullying and threatening anyone who tries to correct this. A new page has been started, immediately tagged by this editor for "speedy deletion." This is suppression. And worse, this is the second time this has occurred - it started in 2010 with the passage of City Council f ile 90-0606, which established the boundaries for Koreatown after strong public protest. Mapping LA's inexplicable and factually unsubstantiated definition of Koreatown has encouraged this kind cyber war. Denying Wilshire Park an identity on Wikipedia is wrong. We are not in Koreatown - we are half a mile from Koreatown with a neighborhood between us and the established boundary. Until Koretown Los Angeles changes its behavior, I would suggest that both Wilshire Park AND Koreatown be removed from this list, since both are now factually incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WayBackHomes (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC) WayBackHomes (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have sources attesting to the fact that these areas have been referred to as neighborhoods, or at least listed on a map along with other neighborhoods, so both should remain on this list, with links to the pages wherein they are discussed. There are other WP:Reliable sources besides the Los Angeles Times. For those who object to the boundaries as outlined by the Times, you can try to get your side reported in neighborhood newspapers or responsible websites like http://www.laobserved.com/. Once done, Wikipedia then has a source which can easily be used. Editors cannot expect to successfully fight their political battles within the pages of Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a court of law. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also refer editors to Wikipedia:Places of local interest, wherein it is recommended that places that don't have enough WP:Reliable sources for their own article be merged to a larger one. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Because of an objection, I have unmerged the two articles referred to in the section above, so I now propose that Wilshire Park, Los Angeles, be merged into Koreatown, Los Angeles. The content in the Wilshire Park article can easily be explained in the context of Koreatown, and the Koreatown article is of such a size that the merging of Wilshire Park into it will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Although there is some relevant discussion already on this page (in the section just above), anything new should go below. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion—Wilshire Park, Los Angeles

According to Mapping L.A., here, Wilshire Park is part of the Koreatown neighborhood. The extant article on Wilshire Park, Los Angeles, does not have any WP:Secondary sources, which are necessary to show that this small enclave of historic houses is considered WP:Notable by anybody other than those folks who live or own property there. There is simply not enough WP:Reliable sources (so far) to have a stand-alone article on this historic preservation zone. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — Wilshire Park, Los Angeles is a Los Angeles Historic Preservation Overlay Zone with officially designated boundaries ( preservation.lacity.org: Wilshire Park HPOZ map). The article's content has multiple issues, but its total absence would deprive Category:Los Angeles Historic Preservation Overlay Zones of information about it (preservation.lacity.org: Wilshire Park HPOZ info, including Adopting Ordinance + Preservation Plan links. This link mentions 'The Country Club Park - Wilshire Park - Windsor Village HPOZ Board' which could be a new upmerge article if this one is determined not sufficiently WP:Notable as a stand alone. I have put these and other WP:Reliable sources as references in the article. Category:Koreatown, Los Angeles could be added to the current Category:Wilshire, Los Angeles if also verified as correct boundary−wise, to address the proposed merger concerns. — Look2See1 t a l k → 19:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assessment comment

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

This article has potential for a higher rating but there are plenty of unwritten or muddled links and articles and is very sporatic, after some cleaning and added information I will review and reassess the rating. (♠Taifarious1♠) 07:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 07:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 22:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226092055/http://www.downtownlawalks.com/?f=Civic_Center to http://www.downtownlawalks.com/?f=Civic_Center

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "citation needed" tags?

A number of names linked to articles are tagged "citation needed"? Why is sourcing needed for a name that links to an article? I propose to remove all such tags in this article - approve/oppose? WCCasey (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are used to indicate that there is no proof either on this page nor on the target pages that these geographic names are actual neighborhoods. We have to be sure that simple subdivisions, tracts, and other real-estate puffery are not allowed on this page. Rather than our removing these listings, it is better that the reader be informed that there has been no source found that any given name is actually a neighborhood. So these notations should not be removed: They provide needed info. Instead, any interested editor can hunt around and find citations, if they do indeed exist, thereby improving the validity of the WP information about L.A. neighorhoods. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found sources that say that most these are all actual neighborhoods, except for Platinum Triangle, Los Angeles, which is actually a group of neighborhoods in different cities and so should be removed from this list. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the name of this article includes "districts," but anyway, they are now all cited, except for that Triangle thingy. Again, this list should not include real-estate puff pieces. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, East Gate Bel Air, Los Angeles is called an "area," so maybe it shouldn't be in here. But that's another story. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If an article exists describing a district/neighborhood with a particular name, that's sufficient sourcing to be on a list like this one. If a lack of sourcing needs to be tagged, it should be done in the original article, not on this list. Sources found should also be noted in the original article, not on this list. If a neighborhood name is found to be not real, the name's article should be nominated for deletion per WP:DP, and the name can then be removed from this list. WCCasey (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Virgil Village

An article Virgil Village did exist in the German language Wikipedia since 2007. After an AfD debate, I have today replaced that article with a redirect, thus closing the debate in my capacity as a sysop. The corresponding English language article Virgil Village, Los Angeles has been prodded and deleted here in 2013. I would be innterested in the current views of active contributors to the English language Wikipedia (and presumably people knowledgable about L.A.) on the notability of Virgil Village. Would you consider revisiting the decsion? A point of contention in our debate has been the recognition of Virgil Village as one of six districts within the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council. --Minderbinder (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a district within a neighborhood, so it could be added to this list and mentioned in an article about East Hollywood, Los Angeles. The articles I examined indicate it should go there. https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=virgil+village&p_county=Los+Angeles+County%2C+California BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

@BeenAroundAWhile: Greetings! Regarding this revert... WP:CITESTYLE has general guidance. There a three reasons to change the style here. First, the article uses inconsistent styles for citations, some with Wikipedia's standard clickable footnotes and some with non-standard superscript markup. Second, the clickable footnotes make it easy for readers to jump to the cited source, or see the citation when hovering, so I think that's preferred. Third, the superscript notation looks more like stylized or technical text (like a chemistry formula) rather than a footnote, both to readers familiar with Wikipedia and automated spell checkers (which is how I ended up here). -- Beland (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've made a good start in countering one of our basic policies, which is WP:Ignore all rules, but you haven't persuaded me. Can you go further and explain in what way "clickable footnotes" are required or at least suggested in WP usage? It is my understanding that all we need, really, is a citation, clickable or not. Second, in what way is it deleterious to the encyclopedia to have "non-standard superscript markup"? Thanks, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, any citation will satisfy the requirement to cite sources, but there's an advantage to clickable and hoverable footnotes in simply that it's easier for readers to see the citation. Not being consistent in how footnote citations are made increases the possibility for confusion. For me personally, when I saw these acronyms in superscript instead of numbers, I was wondering if they were indicating groups of neighborhoods or something. It's not until you actually scroll down to the bottom of the page that the meaning becomes clear. -- Beland (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for explaining...I did not understand what the notice you had placed on the article page actually meant. I agree with you. And it doesn’t seem like a difficult change to make Phatblackmama (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that, if we add such a tag, we are just cluttering up the page with a stricture that nobody will bother to address. Surely there is nothing clickable about refs to a Thomas Guide of several years ago. What about deleting them all and simply note that the refs are to be found in the texts of the target pages? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can take care of that if there's no objection. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clicking from the article text to an external web site I meant, but just clicking from the article text to see the footnote text. Though I suppose see-link-on-hover does make that second click a lot easier, if the citation is to a web site and not a book. If the concern is not about the change itself, but that the cleanup tag makes the page unpretty, the right solution is just to perform the cleanup the tag is there for. It's just a search-and-replace, and since at least two out of three editors support it, I've just done it. (I was looking at a list of hundreds of articles that need cleanup of one kind or another and didn't have time to clean all of them; otherwise I would have just done this to begin with.) -- Beland (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did a good job. Thanks! The only change I might suggest is to get the citations into numerical order, but that is really minor. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining Los Angeles neighborhoods

This conversation was originally on User talk:Beland. Moving here because it has pointers to sources and so it can be removed from my list of unread messages. -- Beland (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see you made some changes to some Los Angeles neighborhoods and hope you don't mind if I explain a few things to you.

City designated neighborhoods

(1) Per the City of Los Angeles, neighborhoods are named by a specific process and then given official signage. These signs are noted on the wikipedia page Los Angeles Neighborhood Signs. LAist stated that these signs indicate “official L.A. neighborhood” designation ^[1]^[2]

(2) The city of Los Angeles does not have different signs for neighborhoods that nest within larger neighborhoods. The city has posted Mid-City signs from just west of downtown to almost Culver City. Within Mid-City are other neighborhoods. Here is a photo of Mid-City signage ^[3], along with Mid-City Heights sign right behind it, placing it inside the borders of Mid-City.

(3) The same goes for Baldwin Hills and Baldwin Vista. As noted, Baldwin Vista is a "western Baldwin Hills neighborhood" ^[4]. But the city gives each of them their own neighborhood sign.

LA Times Mapping Project

(4) This is where is gets messy!

A decade ago, The Los Angeles Times felt there were too many designated neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Indeed, you can drive down Olympic Boulevard and go past a handful of neighborhoods in a quarter mile. So, the Mapping L.A. project of the LA Times decided to redraw neighborhood lines. The LA Times Mapping Project reduced 472 neighborhoods down to 115.

The neighborhoods of Crenshaw and Baldwin Hills were combined into a new entity called Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw. (user Been Aroundawhile, a former reporter for the LA Times, was instrumental in adding these new entities to wikipedia and deleting the city designated neighborhoods - which were promptly added back in). And if you go through the citations on the Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw page, you will see that the only usage of the name "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw" is used by the LA Times Mapping project; all other sources refer to the neighborhoods of either "Baldwin Hills" or "Crenshaw".

(5) Regarding Mapping L.A......please look at the geography section of Arlington Heights, Los Angeles. The city has documented its boundaries and placed neighborhood signage on the corners. But the Mapping L.A. project expands Arlington Heights past those boundaries, and combines it with Country Club Park and Angelus Vista. The Mapping L.A. project does that a lot - combining multiple neighborhoods under one name for the sake of simplicity -- that is, reducing 472 neighborhoods down to 115.

(6) Comparing this map ^[5] with the Mapping LA Project, Elizabeth Fuller wrote in the LarchmontBuzz ^[6] that "Many people who live in and represent their neighborhoods in various ways have objected to the Times’ designations for not following city-recognized borders.” She said that Brightwell's map was a much more fine-grained view of “every L.A. neighborhood.”

(7) It appears that in 2018, even the LA Times is not sticking to the "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw" name that it created a decade earlier and now simply uses the name "Baldwin Hills" ^[4].

(8) please do not think this is just an issue with "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw". The Mapping Project has designated many neighborhoods that contradict city boundaries.

Conclusion

(9) Jenna Chandler, the editor of Curbed Los Angeles, wrote that Brightwell's map of 472 neighborhoods "looks more accurate than the neighborhood maps compiled by the Los Angeles Times."^[7]

(10) I hope I have laid out everything clearly. I therefore strongly object to your wording on the Baldwin Hills page that "it is part of Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw" without noting that Baldwin Hills is a city-named place and that Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw is a creation of the Los Angeles Times that neither the city nor other sources recognize. ^[8] To be accurate, it would have to be stated that "The LA Times mapping project combines Baldwin Hills and Crenshaw into the neighborhood of Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw".

I hope that I have stated everything clearly. Yours, Phatblackmama (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Kemp Powers,LAist Neighborhood Project: Franklin Hills, November 16, 2007". Archived from the original on October 27, 2019. Retrieved March 10, 2020.
^ "Zach Behrens, LAist Wake Up LA, February 12, 2008". Archived from the original on November 13, 2017. Retrieved March 10, 2020.
^ signage at the intersection at La Brea Avenue and the Santa Monica Freeway
^ ^a ^b https://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/hot-property/la-fi-hotprop-panns-midcentury-20180703-story.html
^ https://la.curbed.com/2017/7/28/16059422/los-angeles-neighborhoods-map/
^ Elizabeth Fuller, "LarchmontBuzz" July 29, 2017
^ Jenna Chandler, "Which LA. Neighborhood Do You Really Live In?" December 27, 2019
^ https://laist.com/2007/08/17/baldwin_hills_los_angeles.php

@Phatblackmama: Ah, that's an interesting practice with the signs. The Brightwell map is great, and I've been using it as a reference for my edits on the discussion at Talk:List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles; it also reports that some small neighborhoods are considered part of larger neighborhoods, though that nesting doesn't always agree with the LA Times. Neighborhoods are generally a fuzzy concept, and different people have different ideas about where they start and end. The Mapping LA project has apparently redrawn its maps based on reader feedback, so it represents at least an approximation of what locals generally agree on (to the extent that they agree). That may or may not align with the official city definition, especially in terms of flat vs. nested definitions, but that doesn't make one or the other incorrect. I'm not sure Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw is entirely a creation of the LA Times, though it's difficult to tell from afar. Apparently there's a mall called Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza? But attributing the assignment to Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw to Mapping L.A. is good practice, so I've modified the Baldwin Hills, Los Angeles article. The article Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw, Los Angeles just says that this is a neighborhood, not that it is a creature of the LA Times. If you think it's not a real thing, perhaps this article should be deleted and its contents split between Baldwin Hills, Los Angeles and Crenshaw, Los Angeles? That would lose all the data supplied by Mapping L.A., so alternatively this entity could be described as a statistical grouping, if that's really all that it is. Given that the LA Times has used the term as if it's a neighborhood name, I'd say it's probably more than just a statistical grouping, even if sometimes it talks about only Baldwin Hills. (Just like it's sensible to talk about the Fenway neighborhood in Boston, where I used to live, even though the officially designated city district is Fenway-Kenmore and that's also a neighborhood real estate agents talk about. Actually, that reminds me that real estate agents are a good source of information about how neighborhood names are defined and used by people on the ground. I see online some LA rental agents talk about "Baldwin Hills" alone, but this one uses "Baldwin Hills-Crenshaw". -- Beland (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw...the Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza was named in 1989, long before the LA mapping project, and derives its name from its location, straddling two adjacent neighborhoods (sort of like how the Wiltern Theater, located at Wilshire and Western, derived its name). The LA Times (I can only assume) saw that name and, 20 years later, decided to combine the two neighborhoods. That makes sense, if your goal is reducing the number of neighborhoods in LA, as noted above.

You note that in Boston, wikipedia uses official names, such as Fenway-Kenmore. In this case, the official names that the city and state use are: Baldwin Hills and Crenshaw. ^[1] ^[2] Other sources stick to those official names...You spent time googling "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw". I am sure you saw google's info box when searching for "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw"...you get the mall, not a neighborhood (https://ibb.co/59s9ffd). Versus googling "Baldwin Hills", which displays an info box with a city map and neighborhood information (https://ibb.co/m4YYYhz). Or "Crenshaw", which does the same (https://ibb.co/ZB1pZ7c).

You also mention that you found one real estate agent who uses that name. That is not a notable source.

To be clear, I have no problem listing "Crenshaw", "Baldwin Hills", and "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw" in the grid. But each listed individually...respecting the fact that the city and state considers them separate and distinct neighborhoods and, concurrently, that the LA Times considers them to be one. Wikipedia must remain neutral. Phatblackmama (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Phatblackmama: Well, the Wikipedia policy on naming is to use the common name, not necessarily the official name, though that's for two names for the same thing, not two names for related things of different sizes. I use Duck Duck Go, not Google; I get an infobox for Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw, Los Angeles when I search on "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw" and not when I search for "Baldwin Hills Crenshaw". Google happens to ignore the punctuation that makes the difference and Duck Duck Go doesn't. Both are using Wikipedia to power infoboxes for neighborhoods, so it's a bit circular to rely on them for what Wikipedia should title its articles. Notability is not a criterion for sources; that's for determining what articles to have.

Are you sure the LA Times' naming isn't reflecting a real overlap in identification or naming or culture? After all, Baldwin Village has apparently been part of Crenshaw since it was The Jungle(s), but now it has "Baldwin" in the name. -- Beland (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When searching "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw" you do get an info box..for the mall, not a neighborhood. ^[1] But you use duck duck go, which processes around 1.5 billion searches every month. Google, in contrast, processes around 3.5 billion searches every day. Needless to say, more people see the mall when searching "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw" and a neighborhood when searching "Crenshaw" or "Baldwin Hills". A lot more people. And Bing comes up with the mall also.

You correctly note that some of the information in the info boxes on google are from wikipedia. But not the maps. They use city maps, not the LA Times mapping project.

And Notability is not a criterion for sources, but one real estate listing is hardly a reliable source to define a neighborhood. That's all ya got?

It seems that you are trying to come up with some reason as to how or why the LA Times came up with the entity "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw". That is not our job. We are supposed to cite sources....and both city and state, and the Los Angeles Times (prior to the mapping project), use the separate names of "Baldwin Hills" and "Crenshaw". And, a decade after the mapping project finished, the city, state, Laist, curbed and Los Angeles magazine have not used the name "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw" either as a stand-alone or as a parent neighborhood. Phatblackmama (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://ibb.co/59s9ffd

@Phatblackmama: Well, it sounded like you were theorizing that the LA Times had the goal of reducing the number of neighborhoods on its map, and used the name of a mall as a pretense to combine two neighborhoods, with the implication that they somehow didn't deserve to be combined, and also emphasizing that no source other than the LA Times used the name. I'm not proposing that real estate agent should be used as a source an an article; I'm just pointing out that while other cartographers might not use the term, it is in use in commerce. It's a completely reliable source, but only to establish that this particular real estate agency uses the term to describe the same area described by the LA Times. I'd say it's not suitable as a reference for an article not because it's unreliable, but because it's a primary source. Secondary sources like cartographers consult with primary sources like businesses and readers and their work product is much more useful for writing articles. As I wrote on Talk:List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles, I think a more likely theory is there are some blocks certain people call "Crenshaw" (like Google Maps does) and other people call "Baldwin Hills" (like Brightwell) and the LA Times decided not to pick one over the other, or couldn't draw a clear boundary between those identities. If you don't agree, that's fine; we have already agreed to recognized the LA Times definitions as one of several sources to be cited in LA neighborhood articles.

Just FYI, search engine results are automated (I'm a programmer; I've built search engines and built robots that used search engines to answer questions), and the top results and infobox results have not necessarily been verified by a person to be correct, and higher-traffic doesn't necessarily mean more accurate for any given query. If I ask Google "what is the population of Mars", it tells me "ten billion humans". "Who is the king of Mars?" Abraham Lincoln. Google results are also personalized based on search history, so not everyone sees the same results. The infobox result from Duck Duck Go for "what is the population of Mars" happens to be Colonization of Mars, but ::shrug:: it got lucky. -- Beland (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting

Initial idea

It would be helpful to readers to sort this list geographically rather than alphabetically. Do any of these neighborhoods contain the others? Is the next level up the regions listed in Template:Los Angeles? -- Beland (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea...in concept. I agree that it would be very useful to group them as you suggested. I just cannot visualize how it would look. Phatblackmama (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be that way, PBM . . . Go to here for an example. It was changed to an alphabetical listing because the reader might not know in what part of L.A., one could find (as an example) Eagle Rock. Now, the reader can eyeball the entire list of districts and neighborhoods at (more or less) one glance. Also, a simple alphabetical list avoids all the fights about in what region any particular neighborhood or district belongs. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed Beland was talking about a format that could be sorted by clicking on a header and sorting the list alphabetically, then clicking on another header and re-sorting it by region. But if it is an "either/or" situation, I would rather keep it alphabetically. Phatblackmama (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As someone not familiar with LA, the alphabetical sort isn't all that informative for me. I very much like your idea of a table with multiple sort options; throwing in a column for population would be even better, if such information is available. Another way to go would be to have a map, which would be even better for non-Angelinos. At least in Boston the city has established official neighborhood zones for parking purposes which clarifies the boundaries; not sure about LA. -- Beland (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Los Angeles, there seem to be more battles over neighborhood boundaries than over who will be elected mayor. That makes creating a complicated listing rather, uh, complicated. Anyway, there is a way to find articles about districts and regions in the links at the bottom of the page. Or, one could just go to the neighborhood article and see in what region any given neighborhood lies, or is said to lie. Population listings are, for the most part, unavailable or old. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "region" listings at the bottom of the page are either from the Los Angeles Times mapping project or from the 12 regions designated in the Neighborhood Council maps ^[1]. Perhaps I am missing something, but I am not seeing conflict. I would have headings for those two sources, along with City Council districts ^[2].

As an example, Carthay Circle would listed under "neighborhood". Next to it, under the heading "region" would be "Central Los Angeles". Under the heading "Neighborhood Council" would be "Central 1". And under the heading "Council District" would be "10".

One could then click on the heading "region" and group everything in "Central Los Angeles" together. Or click on "Neighborhood Council" and see all those neighborhoods grouped together. Same with "Council district".

I am not seeing a downside. Phatblackmama (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some neighborhoods are identified by one source as being in one region or area and are identified by another source as being in an adjoining region or area. There would be dissension; people are very possessive of their neighborhoods. Westside Village, Los Angeles, for example, is traditionally in Palms, Los Angeles, but has been placed with a neighborhood council across the freeway. There are scores of other boundary issues. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a problem with the grid below. This is all empirical evidence. Phatblackmama (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks great! I wouldn't worry about "dissension" destabilizing this article. In some cases, there are objective facts which people may not like (such as what council the city has grouped their neighborhood into) but which aren't in dispute. Where sources disagree about where neighborhood or region boundaries are, we can simply note that a given area might be considered to be a part of either, or just consistently pick one source and note other sources disagree. Lots of cities have the same problem with fuzzy neighborhood boundaries that are hotly contested, and we've managed to make plenty of neighborhood articles without exploding. -- Beland (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chart (edited)

Name	Region ^[3]^[4]	Los Angeles City Council districts^[5]	Neighborhood Council^[6]	Notes
Palms	Westside	5	Palms Neighborhood Council
Westside Village	Westside	5	Mar Vista Community Council
Carthay Circle	Central Los Angeles	5	Mid City West Community Council
Jefferson Park	South Los Angeles	8	United Neighborhoods Neighborhood Council
Angelino Heights	Central Los Angeles	1	Echo Park Neighborhood Council
Chesterfield Square	South Los Angeles	8	Empowerment Congress Central Area Neighborhood Development Council
Sawtelle, Los Angeles (incorporated part)	Westside	11	West Los Angeles Sawtelle Neighborhood Council^[7]
Baldwin Hills	South Los Angeles	8	Empowerment Congress Central Area Neighborhood Development Council	sometimes considered part of Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw
Baldwin Vista	South Los Angeles	8	Empowerment Congress Central Area Neighborhood Development Council	sometimes considered part of Baldwin Hills or Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw
Village Green	South Los Angeles	8	Empowerment Congress Central Area Neighborhood Development Council
Baldwin Village	South Los Angeles	8	Empowerment Congress Central Area Neighborhood Development Council	sometimes considered part of Crenshaw or Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw
Crenshaw	South Los Angeles	8	Empowerment Congress Central Area Neighborhood Development Council	sometimes considered part of Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw
Crenshaw Manor	South Los Angeles	10	North Neighborhood Area Development Council ^[8]	sometimes considered part of Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw

Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw (incorporated part) Baldwin Hills Baldwin Hills Estates ("The Dons") Baldwin Vista Village Green Baldwin Village Crenshaw Crenshaw Manor	South Los Angeles	8 (mostly) and 10 (Crenshaw Manor)	Empowerment Congress West Area Neighborhood Development Council^[9] & North Neighborhood Area Development Council (Crenshaw Manor) ^[10]

Discussion of chart

Thanks for the effort. The chart looks, well, chart-like. I'll just make my points: (1) Trying to put Sawtelle, Los Angeles, into that chart, or choosing between Crenshaw, Los Angeles, and Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw, Los Angeles, would cause a great deal of dissension. What about Melrose Hill, Los Angeles? Who decides what area or region it's in? Same for Solano Canyon, Los Angeles — its article does not give the information required by the chart. (2) Some neighborhoods are divided between NCs. (3) The markup is much more complicated than the previous, which was simply divided into A-K and L-Z, and that was for ease of navigation. One loooong markup would be very, very difficult for most users to edit. But I’ve said enough. Thanks for reading. Oh, one more point: We need more input than the 3-4 editors who've been commenting so far. Best wishes to all.BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. I approve. Redspork02 (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of a searchable grid; however (I may have missed a few points since I read this quickly) things are not always consistent across sources. For example, we have the official regions set by the City of Los Angeles (Area Planning Commission areas) and then we have the regions used by sources like the Los Angeles Times. Area Planning Commission areas are then divided into Community Plan areas. (Sometimes a CPA falls partly in two APC areas, but even in those cases the CPA is still mostly all in one APC area with a very small outlying part.) CPAs are then divided by neighborhood council, which are officially recognized. (Similarly, neighborhood councils also sometimes represent areas within more than one CPA, but usually just small outlying portions.)

While Mapping L.A. is a very useful project, it merges neighboring census tracts together in defining communities. This is great for reporting data, but its limitation (as stated on the Mapping L.A. website) is that those boundaries are often out of sync with the historical, demographic, architectural, and other contexts that actually define communities. For this, we should look to the city community plans, neighborhood councils, and SurveyLA. These sources would state what area Melrose Hill, for example, falls under.

Therefore, if we are to include a chart, my suggestion is to list the neighborhood, include what CPA it falls under and what APC area it falls under. Those are official sources that would not result in an edit conflict. Sorry if I misunderstood anything. Keep up the good work, all. --Precision123 (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BeenAroundAWhile: To take those examples one at a time, I added Sawtelle to the chart as I think it should be, based on its article and the referenced sources (and my lack of native familiarity with LA geography). Since this is a list of neighborhoods of the city of Los Angeles, the part outside the city isn't really included in the scope of the list. It's informative to note neighborhoods that by some definitions extend outside of the city, and I've implied that in the table. Does that make sense? -- Beland (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BeenAroundAWhile: I've just added Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw based on research from afar. Our articles contradict each other on what the direct parent neighborhood of Baldwin Village is, so I've started a discussion on Talk:Baldwin Village, Los Angeles. If that's disputed, that ambiguity can be noted on the chart and all the affected articles. Otherwise, this is a good example of how to handle smaller neighborhoods inside larger ones. -- Beland (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The LA Times map says Melrose Hill is in East Hollywood, Central LA, and the Brightwell map agrees. The sources also agree that Solano Canyon is in Elysian Park, Los Angeles, which is where Solano Canyon, Los Angeles currently redirects (it has a section). -- Beland (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We get into problems very quickly if you want to nest neighborhoods. I disagree with it as a concept. You indicate that the LA Times map places Melrose Hill in East Hollywood. However, if you google East Hollywood, you will see that google uses the city of Los Angeles map ^[1] (not the LA Times map) of East Hollywood in the infobox. (https://ibb.co/mSqkcgr) And Melrose Hill is not within that area. So whose map do you use? Google made a choice...choosing the city map over the LA Times. And they can make a choice...but wikipedia is supposed to remain neutral. Rather than get into arguments, I think each neighborhood should be placed only within the largest of regions - Central, South, Westside, etc. - and sort out any minutia on the individual pages. Phatblackmama (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To make the page easier to navigate and edit, one thing we could do is have separate charts for each region, one per section. It would make the list not sortable across regions, but I'm not sure what other columns a unified chart would really need to be sorted by. As someone not from LA, knowing the region of a neighborhood is probably all the detail I would care to know most of the time, though it's handy to be able to drill down and know how neighborhoods are related on a small scale when looking at real estate or local stories or something. -- Beland (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you wouldn't want this sortable across all regions. And again, to the point I made above...whose map do you use? user Precision123 suggests using official regions set by the City of Los Angeles (Area Planning Commission areas) instead of the regions created by the Los Angeles Times. I hoped that using the broadest of areas (Central, South, Westside etc.) we could avoid conflict. But this will certainly run into opposition if we go smaller than that. Phatblackmama (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the Baldwin Hill area neighborhoods into the chart individually. The list remains sortable by neighborhood council and council district. The nesting used in the next section does not allow for this, as it lists multiple neighborhood councils and multiple council districts. Phatblackmama (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there are two maps that disagree, the way to avoid conflict is to reflect both, using annotations. Pretending that granular relationships don't exist isn't helpful to readers, and this information is presented on article pages anyway, so it's not helpful to editors either. If you want to keep give each lowest-level neighborhood its own row, that's fine; we can indicate parent neighborhoods (ambiguous or otherwise) by adding a column. -- Beland (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So how would you rectify Mid-City? The City has placed neighborhood signs as far east as Hoover Street ^[2], and as far west as Culver City, drawing a much larger Mid-City area than the LA Mapping project. This map is acknowledged by google when you search for Mid-City, Los Angeles (https://i.ibb.co/xj8cQdQ/Midcity.png). That would encompass Arlington Heights, which falls within the delineated area. That contradicts the LA Mapping project, which reduces Mid-City to a much smaller area and places Arlington Heights adjacent to it.

Again, this is all noted on the individual pages, but trying to cram contradictory information into a grid would make it useless. The use I see for a sortable, simple grid....being able to locate your own neighborhood, see what council district you are in, then sort by council district and see what other neighborhoods you are grouped with. Then resort by neighborhood council to see what neighborhoods are in your council. Those all have real world implications when one is looking to become involved in their community. Phatblackmama (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no parts of Mid-City that are not covered by a more-specific article, then there's no need for Mid-City to have a row in the table. It would be linked from smaller neighborhoods in the Notes column as "part of Mid-City" or "sometimes considered part of Mid-City" but the council info in the row would apply to the smaller neighborhood. -- Beland (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone kindly summarize the points of discussion here? Thank you. --Precision123 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The people discussing a chart believe that there SHOULD be a chart. That belief is not shared by all. In fact, I am saying right now that the current layout is the best one, and there should be no change. At present, every neighborhood is listed alphabetically (very sensible). Several years ago the list was divided geographically, a division that did not make sense because often searchers would not know what geographical area a given community was placed. In fact, some communities are difficult to place in a larger area; they could go either left or right of an area's (indistinct) dividing line. Anyway, the alphabetical listing was and is the most reasonable way to organize this list. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's more, editing a chart is much more difficult than editing a list. If we get a new neighborhood (which happens), it is very confusing to try to insert it into a chart. It's pretty easy just to put the newcomer in alphabetical order in a list. That's the way Angelus Vista, Los Angeles, was added to the list just a few months ago. So, there is no WP:consensus to make any change in layout, and I don't believe there will be. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Angeles Mesa, Los Angeles, was easily added the same way. See http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=List_of_districts_and_neighborhoods_of_Los_Angeles&type=revision&diff=952906455&oldid=952822589. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crenshaw Manor

It would be help to explain the boundaries of Crenshaw Manor in a stub article or a section of the Crenshaw, Los Angeles article. It looks like there might not be a place that is just "Crenshaw" and not part of some other thing, as the Brightwell map has a neighborhood called Crenshaw Manor, but nothing called Crenshaw (but it says certain neighborhoods are part of the Crenshaw area). Google Maps considers "Crenshaw" to include everything in Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw east of South La Brea Ave, plus some blocks north of West Jefferson Boulevard. The Brightwell map considers most of the blocks southwest of MLK to be in Baldwin Hills, and Google Maps considers that to be Crenshaw, so maybe that's why the LA Times just calls it "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw", because people really do use both names for some overlapping territory. Google Maps unhelpfully considers Crenshaw Manor to be an apartment building and Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw to be a mall. -- Beland (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The official names that the city and state use for the neighborhood is Crenshaw. ^[3] ^[4] Additionally, Brightwell places "Crenshaw Manor" between West Adams to the north and the Baldwin Hills and Crenshaw areas to the south. Google maps delineates a very specific area for "Crenshaw". And prior to the Mapping Project, the LA Times referred to the area as "Crenshaw" ^[5] ("older Japanese-Americans in Crenshaw evince a stubborn pride", "Mabel Ota, now in her 70s, who moved to Crenshaw in 1954"....)

I therefore don't understand why you would say "there might not be an place called "Crenshaw"? Analysis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources is considered WP:ORIGINAL. Phatblackmama (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that there might not be a place that's only called Crenshaw, as opposed to both Crenshaw and something more specific. I'm just trying to understand what the sources say, not make up something new! I actually just read the Brightwell description you posted above, but looking at his map, there's no place I can find that is "Crenshaw" but not "Crenshaw Manor" and not "Baldwin Village". I've already updated the Crenshaw, Los Angeles article with the boundaries projected by Google Maps. -- Beland (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Crenshaw Manor: the area bounded by the following streets is officially designated as "Crenshaw Manor": Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, from Chesapeake Avenue to Crenshaw Boulevard. Exposition Boulevard, from Chesapeake Avenue to Crenshaw Boulevard. Crenshaw Boulevard, from Exposition Boulevard to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. Chesapeake Avenue, from Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard to Exposition Boulevard. ^[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phatblackmama (talk • contribs) 00:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, that looks like what the Brightwell map calls "Crenshaw Manor". Then where is "Crenshaw" according to these sources? -- Beland (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Sonoratown

BeenAroundAWhile, I happened to see this entry in an edit summary and remembered there is an article. It's currently a part of Chinatown, but there is a community memory of it. If past neighborhoods aren't part of the main list, perhaps a Past section for historical neighborhoods could be created. I re-added the entry with a wikilink to the list. If I'm mistaken about any of this rv and reply. Hope things are well. // Timothy :: talk 23:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sonoratown is now in the list. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inglewood?

I am not from US, but that is a name I always remember because it sounds funny. Surely this should be on the list right? 92.238.237.65 (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inglewood ("up to no good" per "California Love") is a separate municipality within Los Angeles County, California, see Inglewood, California, and it has its own neighborhoods. jengod (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Kemp Powers,LAist Neighborhood Project: Franklin Hills, November 16, 2007". Archived from the original on October 27, 2019. Retrieved March 10, 2020.

[2] "Zach Behrens, LAist Wake Up LA, February 12, 2008". Archived from the original on November 13, 2017. Retrieved March 10, 2020.

[3] signage at the intersection at La Brea Avenue and the Santa Monica Freeway

[pann-4] ttps://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/hot-property/la-fi-hotprop-panns-midcentury-20180703-story.html

[5] ttps://la.curbed.com/2017/7/28/16059422/los-angeles-neighborhoods-map/

[6] Elizabeth Fuller, "LarchmontBuzz" July 29, 2017

[7] Jenna Chandler, "Which LA. Neighborhood Do You Really Live In?" December 27, 2019

[8] ttps://laist.com/2007/08/17/baldwin_hills_los_angeles.php

[9] ttps://bass.house.gov/our-district/district-map-ca-37-overview

[10] ttps://culturela.org/council-districts-directory/city-council-district-8/

[11] ttps://ibb.co/59s9ffd

[12] ttps://empowerla.org/2016elections/region/

[13] ttp://navigatela.lacity.org/common/mapgallery/pdf/council_districts/CDindex_8.5_11.pdf

[14] ttp://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/

[15] Brightwell map

[16] Mapping L.A. Map Of Districts

[17] List of councils and council web sites: https://empowerla.org/councils/

[18] ttps://www.westlasawtelle.org/

[19] ttps://www.nandc.org/area-boundaries-and-map.php

[20] ttps://empowerla.org/ecwandc/

[21] ttps://www.nandc.org/area-boundaries-and-map.php

[22] ttps://www.easthollywood.net/about/map/

[23] File:MidCityatHooverandWashington.jpg

[24] ttps://bass.house.gov/our-district/district-map-ca-37-overview

[25] ttps://culturela.org/council-districts-directory/city-council-district-8/

[26] ttps://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-10-03-ci-41837-story.html

[27] ttp://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2001/01-1874.PDF

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]