Talk:Los Angeles/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Airports

I think the article should read 'near-by airports' or the airports outside city limits should be removed, beacuse this article gives the false impression that airports like Ontario are inside city limts, when it is way outside city limits. While the article states "The Los Angeles metropolitan area", it does not adequatly differencitate between the airports inside and outside city limits, it just states that LAX is main airport. Also, the sentance "The Los Angeles metropolitan area is served by more airports than any major city in the world" is misleading, beacuse the LA metropolitan area is not a city, it is a metropolitian area. The metropolitan area also includes, if I remember correctly, Orange county, so should Orange County airports be included also?. -ChristopherMannMcKay 20:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the word "nearby" to this section. Ontario airport, while outside the city limits, is actually owned by the city of Los Angeles. Maybe someone can add this information. (I'm too tired to figure out how to word it nicely right now). --Oakshade 22:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Climate

Is there no climate or geography section? -ChristopherMannMcKay 20:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Area

The 2000 Census states 469 sq mi What is the 498 sq mi based off? It might be overcounting some land. here's the link http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0644000.html

The other 29.2 sq mi are supposedly water. Unfortunately, the current page incorrectly states 465.0 sq mi and then shows it made up of 469.1 square miles of land and 29.2 square miles (75.7 km²) of it is water, which obviously don't add up right (however the sq kms listed do add up right). I'll change it to 498.3 sq mi, just to make the number add up right, and then it can be decided if the water area is accurate and even if it should still be counted.

"465.0 square miles (1,290.6 km²)—469.1 square miles (1,214.9 km²) of it is land and 29.2 square miles (75.7 km²) of it is water." Jerri Kohl 16:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've also changed the area stated in the initial section (which stated 465 sq mi). I set it to the land area. Again, those with more domain expertise can decide whether that figure should include the water area. I'll note that the sidebar areas are in line with that stated in the actual article now. Jerri Kohl

Requested move #4

The following is a closed 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.

Los Angeles, California → Los Angeles — It had been previously discussed that the name for this page should be moved from “Los Angeles, California” to "Los Angeles" (It is no longer mentioned because it seems someone erased the whole discussion page). The city of Los Angeles is an Alpha World City and therefore does not to be identified by its political subdivision (Los Angeles is the only Alpha city on Wikipedia that has its political subdivision in its name). As a matter of fact, some Beta and Gamma cities do not have their political subdivisions in their name (so then why does LA?). Just as New York City, Paris, Toronto, Madrid, Chicago and other world cities are known without mentioning their political subdivisions so is Los Angeles. If you feel that the move is not a wise choice, please support the reason why you disagree with the name change. Jfcr3wp 06:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support -- My reason is mentioned above. To me, the name itself seems to downgrade the cities classification as an Alpha city. If someone mentioned Los Angeles, how many of you would need reassurance that it was in reference to the city in California? Also being that Los Angeles is derived from Spanish roughly meaning ‘the angels’ I fail to see how Los Angeles could mean anything else in English. If it does, this is already covered in the disambiguation page. Jfcr3wp 07:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Support, unless we're going to move Paris to Paris, France and London to London, England (which I wouldn't necessarily oppose). --Trovatore 08:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Support per above. Georgia guy 14:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Support - All oppose votes below are moot given that in its entire existance, Los Angeles has only redirected to Los Angeles (disambiguation) for all of 3 hours. Unless you're going to change that, then there is no point in not moving this article. - hahnchen 15:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Support Almost all major cities have the distinction issues between the municipality, metro area, and larger administrative subdivision mentioned in one of the oppose votes below, but in almost all such cases the simple name is chosen to be the name of the city article and not a dismabiguation page. For example Madrid refers to the city even though there is a Madrid metropolitan area and a Madrid (autonomous community). This move will just bring Los Angeles in line with what other major city articles already do in Wikipedia. --Polaron | Talk 15:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Support - pretty much a no-brainer. --Yath 19:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

   That is not a reason, and the closing admin will probably ignore your vote unless you give a real reason. TJ Spyke 22:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

7. Strong Support - Los Angeles is an alpha city, a name unto itself. Anywhere on earth, when you mention Los Angeles, people know exactly what that is. We have single city/town titles for very small places - Fontana Liri, Loriga and Tubou are simple examples.
   As for the Wikipedia:Naming conventions arguments against this move, as with lesser American cities like Chicago and Philadelphia, there is a very justified exception to that guideline (which is inconsistent in itself besides being only a "guideline" and not policy). Other exceptions examples are also much smaller cities like Cardiff, Edinburgh, Vancouver and Belfast ; per the letter of WP:Naming conventions, they should be "Cardiff, Wales," "Edinburgh, Scotland," "Vancouver, British Columbia" and "Belfast, Northern Ireland" respectively - but they're not since editors saw the wisdom of keeping those major notable names by themselves. As for the predicted and tired "but they don't share the name with other places like Los Angeles does" all of these examples share the names of other lesser places. Even the smaller London isn't "London, England" and that shares its name with the (arguably) major city of London, Ontario.
   Let's do this right and show the world this project has the wisdom of recognizing one of Earth's most notable settlements as it should be. --Oakshade 23:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
8. Strong Support - Los Angeles is a major world city. Just as Paris, New York City, or Chicago don't need further classification, Los Angeles should not either. It is just not necessary, and in a way downgrades this very important city. If anyone needs further clarication between the city/county/metropolitan area/etc., they can go to the disambiguation page, or be more precise in their searching. Raime 03:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Strong Oppose It's my personal belief that no city article should just be at the city name (i.e. Chicago should be at Chicago, Illinois and Toronot should be at Toronto, Ontatio for example). There also no reason for it to be moved. TJ Spyke 07:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

   Also, The general usage, as specified by the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements), is for U.S. city artuicles to be named "city, state". TJ Spyke 07:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

   Comment. I agree with you there but there are three U.S. cities (that I know of) that do not follow the “norm” (New York City, Chicago, and Philadelphia). The latter two do not have as strong cultural and economic impact on the country. The two latter cities also had the same problem with naming (both once had their state in their name) and both were approved to remove their state from their name. Why should they be the exception but not Los Angeles? Also if all cities where to have the same naming conventions (such as Tokyo, Japan, Paris, France, etc.) then I would not have a problem with the current name.Jfcr3wp 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

   comment right, that's my basic issue here too. It may not be a good idea — it's probably not a good idea — to distinguish "first tier, world class" cities from other cities through the titles of their articles. But as long as it is being done, then dammit, LA belongs there. If you can convince the English to go along with an article called London, England, then I'm OK with Los Angeles, California, but I'm not OK with the unilateral solution. --Trovatore 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Weak Oppose for two reasons. The guideline suggests this should not be done, and the fact that "Los Angeles" alone often refers to Los Angeles County, California, the Greater Los Angeles Area, or to the area covered by Zip codes 900xx, which is a subset of the city. These are all related concepts, so it's only a weak opposition if two distinct disambig pages are created, one for the related concepts, and one for other uses of Los Angeles.

   (Also, this should have reported to Wikipedia:WikiProject California and Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California. To the best of my knowledge, it has not yet been so reported. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

   London has the same dynamics; There's London and then there's Greater London and as far as I know, there has been no complaints (given the importance of that city, I think it would've been a serious issue by now if there were). FYI, although I don't think it was nessesary for those projects to be informed, it was a good idea nonehtheless and they have now been informed. --Oakshade 23:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Let Los Angeles redirect here with a disambiguation line here linking to Los Angeles (disambiguation)--contrary to what hanchen says above, that is not an indication that this should be anywhere other than where it is. Gene Nygaard 16:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

   Comment. That does not help. There is only one reason this article is titled as such; the "city, state" format that was a practical necessity in early 2004 because of many U.S. cities created this way with a bot. It has been 3 years now, and this is no longer necessary for major cities. Moreover, if we move the page, Los Angeles, Calfornia will remain a re-direct. Georgia guy 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

   Well, I'm assuming that Los Angeles is going to be the more popular search string, I don't understand why its necessary for the redirect. And for navigation purposes, it'd be more efficient. I have however, not read into the naming conventions or whatnot. - hahnchen 16:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

4. Oppose - as far as I know, the general concensus for naming U.S. cities has not changed, including major cities. This has been rehashed so many times. Mike Dillon 16:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

   The general consensus has shown excepetion to the usual naming practices for extremly large (but still smaller than Los Angeles) cities like Chicago and Philadelphia. Moving this to "Los Angeles" alone is actually consistant with consensus. --Oakshade 06:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

5. Oppose per WP:NC:CITY and WP:PRECISION and the laundry list of reasons that have been rehashed before. The fact that there is such a broad area attributed to the term "Los Angeles" only enhances the need for precision in our naming conventions. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

   1. comment so it may well have been rehashed before, but the outcome is still a deep injustice to Los Angeles. If the proposal in the guideline were in fact implemented, it would be fine with me (though I think it should apply to the whole world, not just the States). But it isn't, and isn't going to be. That being the case, there's no justification for trying to hold the line to keep out LA. --Trovatore 07:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

      1. An "injustice" to Los Angeles is irrelevant. It is the Wikipedia reader that we serve, not the city or citizenry of Los Angeles. There is no injustice to the Wikipedia reader to go to a page titled Los Angeles, California when they are looking for that particular city in California. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 08:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

         1. Sure there is. It misinforms the reader, by suggesting that LA is less world-known than Chicago or Philadelphia. --Trovatore 08:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

            1. Actually, it will just inform the reader of the gross inconsistency and lackadaisical sense of consensus that Wikipedia has. If the page moves for Chicago & Philadelphia were brought up today, they certainly would not have passed. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 08:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

               • The current setup just isn't fair. If you think that's not a problem, I disagree. This will keep coming up over and over again until it is fair; you can't just say "we've talked about it before" when the setup remains so blatantly incorrect. --Trovatore 16:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

               1. "Fair"? That seems to be an emotional attachment which is quite baffling. There is no "pride" at stake. Los Angeles' status as world class city is not tarnished or enhanced by what its Wikipedia article is titled at. The purpose of the title is to simply state what the subject of the article is about. Any support vote that is based on "pride" or some "world class" ego modifier misses the point completely. It has no bearing on whether or not the article is correctly titled and if a Wikipedia reader can easily find the article they are looking for. The problem with the current set up isn't a matter of "fairness" but a matter of inconsistency brought about through vaguely defined "exceptions". The issue will keep coming up until the naming convention WP:NC:CITY takes a firm stance for consistency and eliminate the vague exceptions. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

                  • I disagree. WP undervalues Los Angeles with the current setup. Consistency would be fine, but it should apply to the whole world, not just the US; otherwise it looks like there are a few cities that everyone knows in the whole world and don't need any other jurisdictional name -- but none of them are in the US. And that's just not true. --Trovatore 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

                  1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has no bearing on the value or stature of any city in any part of the world. I would love to see Worldwide consistency but even though the US has the largest overall number of related city articles and the majority of Canadian & Australian articles follow a City, State convention, the current culture of Wikipedia is very anti-consistency. Now I do recognize that the State importance has more prominence in the history and culture of the United States then in other parts of the world. That could be a large source of the disconnect with our countries in wanting to attach the province/department/etc to their city names. There is simply not the long standing historical connection to those. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

                     • I still say you're wrong. It's too bad that this scheme is used to distinguish "great" cities from other ones, it shouldn't be that way, but it is that way, and given that, it's just an affront not to include LA. --Trovatore 03:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

6. Oppose. I remember when the large Texas cities were nominated to rid themselves of the state name. There's no good reason to move to Los Angeles from where it is, no matter how large the city is. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose. There is no consensus to do this in the discussions on changing the US settlement naming convention. Also for many people LA refers to Los Angeles County, California, or Greater Los Angeles or Greater Los Angeles Area so the city may not be the most logical choice for a redirect. In fact, it may not be what they wanted in the first place. A redirect should not send a large number of readers to the wrong article. Vegaswikian 05:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

   That's exactly why we have disambiguation pages for articles like Greater Toronto, Greater London and Île-de-France (region)... all of these "greater" metropolitan areas are anchored by cities that have only their names in their respective article title. Nobody had demonstrated any reason why Los Angeles should be excluded from this group. --Oakshade 06:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

   Comment. Your reason to oppose suggests that this article should be at Los Angeles (city). As the city's name, Los Angeles, California is rarely used except when writing postal addresses. It does not logically distinguish it from one of the above. If there were, for example, an equally major city of Los Angeles, Texas, that is what this name would dis-ambiguate it from, in which there is no good reason to dis-ambiguate it as such. Georgia guy 13:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

8. Oppose - per WP:NC:CITY. There is no official meaning to "alpha city" or "world city" (I've never heard the terms until today) and I fail to see why Los Angeles should be un-disambiguated. Given that "Los Angeles" is such an ambiguous term even in local usage (is it the city? the region? the entire megalopolis?)... This also raises huge issues with LA's subsidiary "neighborhood districts" - I say I'm going to "LA" when I mean I'm going to Canoga Park, Los Angeles, California... which is true, but not the whole truth... do we move all the neighborhoods to Canoga Park, Los Angeles? Moving causes more trouble than it's worth, IMO. FCYTravis 07:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

   As a resident of Los Angeles, my answer is it's the city. If you refer to the "Los Angeles metropolitan area", you actually say "Los Angeles metropolitan area." Just like Chicago is referred to as the city and Chicagoland refers to the area including all of its neighboring cities. --Oakshade 07:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

   But that's not how it works in common usage. "I'm going down to LA" quite often means, just going south. It's Valspeakesque, but there you have it. Ask the average person where they're going, they're not going to say "Oh, I'm visiting the Los Angeles metropolitan area." FCYTravis 07:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

   Casual Valspeak-esque usage of terms is not an encyclopedic method to determine the name of a city. I myself have used the phrase "I'm going to New York" when I actually meant that I was going to Suffolk County, New York, but that in no way means that we should alter the consensus agreed-upon-title of New York City by itself. --Oakshade 07:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

9. Weak oppose. I think that all U.S. cities should be "city, state" for consistancy. Right now "Los Angeles" is a redirect to "Los Angeles, California" and that article has three (!) redirect notices at its top. Leave it as such; articles should have the most correct title, even if another title is more popular or common. —ScouterSig 14:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Guidelines such as WP:PRECISION become worthless when exceptions are used in cases that are not exceptional. Moving the article simply because other cities have been moved weakens the guideline. If city-only-names are desired, the change should be made to the naming convention itself, not by adding more exceptions. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

    Los Angeles is exceptional, just as it was determined for places like Chicago and Philadelphia. Nobody has demonstrated why Los Angeles is not exceptional. --Oakshade 22:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

    I don't believe that Chicago and Philadelphia qualify as being exceptional. There is no harm to readers of Wikipedia if Los Angeles stays named as it currently is. I don't think that anyone has shown that Los Angeles is an exceptional case on its own, and merits breaking from the guidelines. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 22:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

    Editors and consensus have disagreed with that opinion and found Chicago and Philadelphia to be exceptional enough to move the article titles to single names. Los Angeles is larger and more internationally famous than those cities. --Oakshade 22:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

    The fact that one article was changed is not a reason for additional articles to be changed. The style for naming US city articles is city, state. There has been a lack of consensus to change this. So unless there is some really good reason, the current articles should stay. Given the various meanings of LA, I fail to see how we can say that one use is predominate. Being exceptional is not a criteria for anything that I'm aware of. Vegaswikian 23:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

    Not only has there been two US cities that have made the move to single names (smaller cities, I might add), but someone proposed New York City be moved to "New York City, New York" and consensus was OPPOSED to that move - see Talk:New York City/Archive 2 (title of article). The policy of WP:CONSENSUS, which supersedes WP:PRECISION which is only a guideline, decided to have all three of these cities as single names. Los Angeles is easily exceptional enough to to be in line with the consensus found with those cities. --Oakshade 00:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

11. Oppose. Per reasons given in previous surveys and above. -Will Beback · † · 21:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose because of reasons above. -ChristopherMannMcKay 00:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
13. Adamantly opposed. per my arguments in the four other proposed page moves, and the arguments I state below. BlankVerse 10:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose because of reasons given in previous surveys and above. Perhaps Jfcr3wp should be investigated with the Checkuser tool to ensure he/she is not a sockpuppet of a certain editor who has repeatedly launched these types of polls in the past on this talk page in violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and other core Wikipedia policies. This is getting really irritating. --Coolcaesar 06:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The reason why the previous requested move is not shown is because it was archived (see the archive box above). The most recent nomination is recorded at Talk:Los Angeles, California/archive3#Requested move #3. Tinlinkin 07:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh cool thanks! Jfcr3wp 07:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this is the forth time that this page has a requested move and every time there is always a no consensus. Again, other cities had the same problem yet they all passed it on their first try. What is it about Los Angeles that seems to get people to oppose the name change? Jfcr3wp 19:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

General comments: "Alpha city" and "World city" are described in that article. Not really that relevant, IMHO, but someone did ask.

Los Angeles is somewhat unique among US cities in that there are parts of the (legal) city which are not referred to as being in Los Angeles; Hollywood, Encino, and Venice come to mind. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a different dynamic now than there was back when Chicago and Philadelphia were moved, Jfcr3wp. Chicago and Philadelphia were moved during lulls in the debate about what the US convention should be. If anything the Chicago move is what kicked this latest round into high gear. Also, saying other cities passed on their first try isn't true, Chicago had at least one failed move request before it was moved. Seattle, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Houston, and Denver have all had at least one failed move request. It's nothing personal against Los Angeles, the issue for many is at the naming convention level. You may be interested to take a stroll through Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) and the archives. --Bobblehead 19:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite true. It's an unfortunate allowance of the vague "exception clause". Since a sizable segment of editors are in favor of strengthening the consistency of the convention, the only way to get these exception moves through is to try and find a lull in the debate when a number of editors are simply not paying attention. That is a rather twisted concept of consensus gathering. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And that is not gathering consensus, it's finding a way around consensus. I'm not suggesting that you would attempt to do that. Since the timing would have to be perfect and I don't know of a way to predict when that window opens it may not be possible other then by sheer luck. Vegaswikian 23:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Reference: Previous suveys where WP:CONSENSUS approved the moves of the smaller US cities of "Chicago, Illinois" to "Chicago" - Talk:Chicago#Requested_move and "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" to "Philadelphia" - Talk:Philadelphia#Requested_move --Oakshade 07:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why the article for the city of Los Angeles should not be at Los Angeles

"Los Angeles" is highly ambiguous. It could mean the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, the Greater Los Angeles Area, the Los Angeles Basin, an airport, a seaport, several different professional sports teams (including the awkwardly named Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim), a university, a state college, a city college, and many other things. It could even refer to something as broad as Southern California. Paradoxically, City of Los Angeles is the name of a passenger train.

As the description at Greater Los Angeles Area says:

"... people outside of Southern California commonly refer to the entire region as L.A. even though it includes five counties, more than 100 distinct municipalities, and more people than any individual state except for Texas, New York, Florida, and California itself."

This confusion about what is "Los Angeles" can easily be seen in the Los Angeles, California article (and especially in the article's edit history) where editors are regularly adding information that does not directly involve the city of Los Angeles. It can also be seen in the What links here for the Los Angeles page that currently redirects to Los Angeles, California. Many of those wikilinks are intended to link to a "Los Angeles" other than the City of Los Angeles.

The question of what is part of the city of LA, and what is not, can confuse even residents of the Los Angeles area. Hollywood, when it isn't being used to refer to Cinema of the United States (or other things), is a district in the city of Los Angeles, as is North Hollywood, but West Hollywood is a separate city. Venice is part of the city of LA, but neighboring Santa Monica is an incorporated city, and neighboring Marina del Rey is an unincorporated community administered by the County of Los Angeles. "East Los Angeles" could mean either East Los Angeles, California (an unincorporated community), the eastern portion of the city of LA that includes communities such as Boyle Heights, or the East Los Angeles region, which is the eastern portion of LA County including the previous two East LA's, plus cities such as Montebello and Pico Rivera. San Fernando in the northern corner of the San Fernando Valley is a separate city entirely surrounded by the city of Los Angeles.

My personal opinion is that Los Angeles should be a disambiguation page, but that is unlikely to happen, so it should be a redirect to Los Angeles, California. It is the easiest way for finding links that were intended for all of the other places and things that are called Los Angeles. BlankVerse 10:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The above long list can all be taken care of at Los Angeles (disambiguation), as the overwhelmingly primary referent for "Los Angeles" is the city. Come on, this is completely a side issue; a great many articles (not just about cities) are at titles that have a great many meanings. When there's one meaning that's hugely predominant, you put a dablink to a disambig page at the top.

Note that the dablink at the top is also exactly what you have to do at Los Angeles, California, so putting the article there doesn't even address your concern.

(Note to Septentrionalis: By the way, this is also the refutation of the article that "New York City" is a special case because "New York, New York" can also mean New York County. That's obviously overwhelmingly the subordinate meaning, so the city article could be at New York, New York with a dablink to New York County. Obviously the real reason people didn't want to go for that was that New York is a great city, which of course it is, and if London stands alone then so should New York City. And Los Angeles.) --Trovatore 10:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I was not in on that decision; but editors who were said at the talk page for WP:NC (settlements) that that is why New York City was moved. I observe that this one is not likely to be moved; but then Los Angeles, California is unambiguous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 13 March 2007 (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.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. In fact, there is no consensus about which guidelines apply, and those guidelines are themselves subject to ongoing discussion. --Stemonitis 13:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

Demographics section is in need of a good strong review. We are led to believe that the city, with 3.7 million people, has 2.7 m households. This is just plain wrong. Average household size in the LA area is more than 3 and nowhere in the nation does it drop to the under 1.5 that this would require. Dont have time now to fix it. Cannot tell if the remaining demographics are correct. Suspect that the editor got the city mixed up with something else, though 2.7 million households is too small for the county, the urban area and the metropolitan area.... Demographia 00:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC]

Largest Israeli population outside Israel?

The wikipedia page on Jewish Americans states that New York City has the largest Israeli population in the U.S. and LA has the second largest. There is also a reference on that page.

City Name Translation

i'm surprised no hispanic or spanish-speaker has changed the translation of the city's spanish name into english. the translation is correct until it translates 'los angeles' as 'los angeles.' this means 'the angels' in spanish, and thats wut it should read. also, i've seen versions of the city's name as 'el pueblo de nuestra señora la reina del rio porciúncula (the town of our lady the queen of the angels of the porciúncula river)'. 4.230.162.172 00:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

in theory, no, because in the whole world L.A. is know as Los Angeles, not The Angels. The translation of the "real name" (at least the name given by Spanish people) is accurate. Now that we are talking about it, a little of trivia that I think should be included in the article (like a "Los Angeles in Popular culture" section) but I dont know where to put it. L.A. is in the spanish Guiness Records as the shortest abbreviation in spanish language: the full name in reduced in 96.37% from El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora bla bla bla to just L.A. --ometzit<col> 02:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That Guiness fact is in the article - its now a ref point (see ref #1). It had been added into the main text and deleted a couple of times by people thinking it was and wasn't important so I moved it to a footnote after te first mention of LA being an abbreviation. Mfield 04:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

So what about that "Los Angeles in Popular culture" section? (Could also include GTA:SA. ;-)) -- Jokes Free4Me 15:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Doomed?

Is the city doomed to going the way of Atlantis due to climate change? MHarrington 03:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Since we don't know much about Atlantis it's hard to say. But the average elevation of Los Angeles is considerably higher than many large coastal U.S. cities, if that's what you're thinking of. (I guess the fear of the area splitting off or sinking into the sea due to earthquake is secondary now.) The whole state of Florida will be under water long before the Pacific Ocean laps at the steps of L.A. City Hall, which is at approximately 300 ft (90 meters). But the lowlying areas around Venice/Marina del Rey and down to Long Beach/Santa Ana will depend on dykes if sea levels rise. I suppose civic goverments are beginning to ponder this situation. The simultaneous loss of LAX, Hyperion, the oil infrastructure, and the port facilities could be a formidable challenge for Los Angeles. (But it sure beats Miami's potential problems, or even New York's.) As sources develop we may want to add a section on the city's disaster planning. -Will Beback · † · 10:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC) (LAX is at 126 feet, so it should be safe for a while.)

You mentioned Venice/Marina del Rey and Long Beach/Santa Ana, but what about Anaheim? MHarrington 03:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Downtown Anaheim is at about 47 meters, so its fairly safe too. The coastal areas of Orange County may have some trouble though. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Public Transit

Good article, one suggestion. I moved to Los Angeles in early 2000 when the trains were just being developed. I remember when the Red Line finally reached the Valley (North Hollywood, where I was living). Coming from Boston, a city with one of the most frequently utilized train systems in the States, it was surprising for me as a non-driver to land into such a car-driven culture. But over the 6 years that I lived in Los Angeles, I have to commend the City for really putting forth a good effort to improve the train system. They have launched several new lines, kept prices low, improved the ticketing system, and created some really beautiful, unique train stations on the Red Line. I think this article should at least mention that the City has been improving the train system continually in the past few years.

Cheers, SlapAyoda 23:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, fellow Bostonian. The transportation section of the article makes copious notes of the proposed and current expansions to the system. To say anything more (e.g. "Los Angeles has put in good efforts lately to improve public transit.") would be opinion or original research. Give it a few years, and the numbers will make this statement. In a city where 10.5% of commuters (see page 12) take public transit, there's certainly room to grow.--Loodog 23:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Embarassing Article

As an Angeleno, my jaw drop as to how awful this article has become. How come the French and German wrote a far better article on this? So good in fact that their respective independently-written L.A. entry both received the highest wikipedia accolade of gold stars. What's shocking is that they both know it's so bad, that not one passage is translated from the English version. The layout and content of those articles were professionally presented whereas here, a bunch of amateur aerial photos hobnob with stubby stilted paragraphs. "Unbalanced" is the key problem with this entry. The Culture section for example, has nothing on the performing arts but chockfull of random crap on the "sports" sections. The "media" gets a stub, yes, a fucking stub. Its freeways are legendary, but there's no discussion of it. It gets shortshrifted because of a handful of mass transit hobbyhorses. Updates to this article are rarely ever substantial--oftentimes the updates are to add the name of whatever ethnic group to the "National Origins" section. Disgusting.

Thanks for your criticism. I'll go look at those articles and see what we can learn from them. To address a few of your points: The culture section grew so large we moved most of it to another article: Arts and culture of Los Angeles. Likewise the material on freeways, which is at Transportation of Los Angeles. And ditto for Media in Los Angeles. Perhaps we should duplicate the material more so that this article is more comprehensive on its own. Maybe the "see main article" notices aren't prominent enough. I don't think the "national origins" section is too long. L.A. is a principal point of entry of new immigrants to the U.S., so its population has notably diverse origins. The main thing this article needs to get a gold star are more sources. In my opinion, this article is well-sourced, but I wouldn't want to drastically cut uncited material just to make it look more highly sourced. Some rebalancing and tightening are probably necessary. We have different articles for the "Los Angeles Area" and the country but non-city material still gets added here. -Will Beback · † · 08:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. How can this article be listed as good baffles me. Sentences like "The metropolitan area contains the headquarters of even more companies, many of whom wish to escape the city's high taxes" go without any references. The sections are chaotic and randomly large and so on.--Svetovid 16:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Los Angeles Neighborhood Map

I created an SVG version of this map but when I upload it it does not look right and has big black spots on it. I used inkscape and would like some help if anyone is intersted. Jorobeq 02:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't use that map. It's not yours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Infernalfox (talk • contribs) 04:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I should be able to since i just traced the borders of the places Image:Los Angeles Neighborhoods and Names.svg Jorobeq 05:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I just created this map that illustrates the borders of LA and the borders of its constituent neighborhoods.

File:LA Neighborhoods No Names Color.png

Jorobeq 21:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you guys think? Any improvements, etc?? Jorobeq 05:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

These maps are very well-made, and I commend Jorobeq for his hard work. However, since the boundaries are based on the LA Almanac's work, I think the maps' copyright status is in question. Though I know the maps are not a direct uploaded copy of the LA Almanac map (at http://www.laalmanac.com/LA/lamap2.htm), they would likely count as a "derivative work" under copyright law. That's probably what Infernalfox meant in his comment above. The neighborhood definitions are the LA Almanac's own proprietary work, and are not official in any sense. However, I'm not going to tag the images as unfree until there's further discussion on the subject, though if others feel such action is appropriate they can feel free. (N.B.: I'm working on a series of maps to use in articles about LA neighborhoods, which use a red dot to show the neighborhood's location and do not use boundaries. There are links to prototype versions of them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Southern California.) szyslak 09:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur that (1) the work is an un-free derivative work and (2) the neighborhood boundaries given by L.A. Almanac are arbitrary and do not reflect any official definition. --Coolcaesar 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Update

I have listed these images at WP:PUI because I dispute their copyright status and consider them unfree derivative works. You may leave comments at their entry at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#June 11. szyslak 06:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete it. Jorobeq 07:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

LA Picture request

I would like shots of the fronts of University High School (Los Angeles, California) and Palisades Charter High School in order to post on Wikipedia articles.

To get an idea of what I want, see: Image:HoustonLamarHighSchool.JPG

WhisperToMe 04:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

you should post these requests to Wikipedia:Requested_pictures as well. Mfield 05:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Party Label

Since the mayoral election in LA is nonpartisan, is it really needed to put the (D) after Villaraigosa's name? Jorobeq 18:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be there. -Will Beback · † · 22:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

5 Counties, not Cities

The Greater Los Angeles Area encompasses a much larger area, consisting of 5 cities and an estimated 18 million people.

Surely this should read "5 counties," not "5 cities."

LA County alone contains 80+ cities with a total population of around 10 million.

The other counties in the region are Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura.

Jbunniii 16:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the source means 5 principal cities... if anyone actually included a source.--Loodog 01:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Dubious: Oldest synagogue in Los Angeles

The article claims that the Breed Street Shul is the oldest synagogue in Los Angeles. According to my research, it was built in 1915. Wilshire Boulevard Temple (predates it by many decades, I believe) see these sites for how I base my conclusions [1] and [2]. That having been said, it is difficult to come up with a definitive "oldest synagogue in Los Angeles" because some may debate the criteria, whether the building has been refurbished, rebuilt, moved, etc... But I am pretty sure that the Breed Street Shul is not the oldest in LA. --Valley2city^₪‽ 04:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Districts and neighborhoods in navigation box

We need to do something about the gigantic "districts and neighborhoods" section of the navigation box for LA-related articles. See the discussion at Template talk:Los Angeles#Districts and Neighborhoods section. szyslak 00:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim/Anaheim Ducks

Should we mention the 2002 World Series victory for the Anaheim Angels or the 2007 Stanley Cup victory for the Anaheim Ducks in this article? These teams aren't in Los Angeles. Somebody used the example of how the New York Giants serve the New York market although they play in New Jersey.

Somebody else used the example of the Texas Rangers. If they did win the World Series, he said that they should be mentioned in the Dallas article. First of all, they play in Arlington, Texas, not Dallas, Texas. Second, they haven't won the World Series.

In conclusion, I simply don't think they should be mentioned in this article as they don't serve the Los Angeles market. They serve both the Anaheim market and the Orange County market, but not the Los Angeles market. Everybody else's thoughts? --Ksy92003 (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Media markets, or DMAs, are defined by the FCC and the Nielsen Media Research Group. All of Orange County is part of the Los Angeles market, which extends up the coast to Ventura and inland to Victorville. Also see this map and List of television stations in North America by media market. The upshot is, there is no "Anaheim" or "Orange County" market. Major sports leagues go by media markets to determine what areas they serve, where games are broadcast on television and blacked out, etc. Orange County is in the Los Angeles market, just as East Rutherford, New Jersey (home of the Giants) is in the New York market, and Arlington, TX is part of the Dallas/Fort Worth market. Thus, a discussion of "L.A. sports" doesn't stop at the Los Angeles city limits. The Ducks and Angels can serve L.A. without being physically located in L.A. (though in the "L.A. area"). szyslak 14:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

But also, the Anaheim Angels play in Anaheim and have their rival, the Dodgers, in Los Angeles. Additionally, the Anaheim Ducks' rivals, the Kings, play in Los Angeles. For the Rangers scenario, no team plays in Dallas. And, look at Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. The template at the bottom says which teams are in or around Los Angeles. Inland Empire cities like Rancho Cucamonga, Lancaster, San Bernardino, etc. If Lancaster, who for the record is the minor league affiliate of the Boston Red Sox, won the minor league championship, would you put in Los Angeles' article a mention of them winning that championship?

And do you have proof from a secondary source that the Angels and Ducks are considered to be in the Los Angeles media market? If you have proof, then I'll back off. Please show me proof. --Ksy92003 (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Angels are referred to as a Los Angeles-market team on Baseball Almanac, MLB's official site, and elsewhere. Remember, "L.A. media market" and "city of L.A." are two different things. For marketing and media purposes, they serve the L.A. market. I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's the way it is. Yes, there are more Angels fans in Orange County than in the city of L.A. There are more New York Mets fans in Queens and Long Island than in Manhattan, where most root for the Yankees. Does that mean the Mets "don't serve" Manhattan? We could squabble endlessly over where most of the fans are, etc. But the fact remains: the Ducks and Angels serve Los Angeles, whether Orange County likes it or not. It works the other way, too: The Dodgers and Kings serve Orange County. szyslak 15:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And by looking at that map, it looks like Anaheim/Orange County is in a separate media market comparing to the map from Image:Tvmarkets.gif. --Ksy92003 (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Which map are you looking at? szyslak 15:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm comparing Image:Tvmarkets.gif to Image:AnaheimOrangeCountyMap.png; in the Anaheim map, you see that Orange County is the second-southern most, the dark-brownish shade near San Diego County at the bottom. On Image:Tvmarkets.gif, that is colored blue. The Los Angeles County media market on that same map is shaded pink-ish. --Ksy92003 (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:AnaheimOrangeCountyMap.png has nothing to do with media markets. The Anaheim city boundaries are colored red. There's a map like that for every incorporated city in Orange County, along with L.A. County. In Image:Tvmarkets.gif, the "dark brown shade" you refer to is not Orange County. It's the Palm Springs market, 149th among DMA markets, which is shown in more detail here. The L.A. market, number 2, is shown in similar detail here. szyslak 15:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I agree I read the map wrong. I apologize for that. However, as I said below, the article is "Los Angeles, California," not "Los Angeles media market's sports teams." The article should be about Los Angeles itself, not about any event that occurs outside Los Angeles, despite media markets. --Ksy92003 (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Palm Springs is the elongated county. According to Image:AnaheimOrangeCountyMap.png, the entirety of Orange County, including Anaheim, is the county directly to the west of Palm Springs. According to Image:Tvmarkets.gif, that section is blue. According to that same map, the Los Angeles area is pink. This means that they are different media markets because of the different color. --Ksy92003 (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Palm Springs is not a county, but a city that's within Riverside County, the "elongated" county you're referring to. Palm Springs is actually located very far to the east much closer to the Arizona border than it is to Los Angeles. The city of Riverside (the county seat or Riverside county) and many other Inland Empire cities are part of the Los Angeles media market. --Oakshade 15:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright...

No, Palm Springs is within Riverside County, the elongated county. According to Image:AnaheimOrangeCountyMap.png, the entirety of Orange County, including Anaheim, is the county directly to the west of Palm Springs. According to Image:Tvmarkets.gif, that section is blue. According to that same map, the Los Angeles area is pink. This means that they are different media markets because of the different color.

According to the map I was directed to, Riverside County is the huge, blue TV market. Los Angeles is still the pinkish section, and Anaheim/Orange County is located within Palm Springs' media market. --Ksy92003 (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ksy92003, according to that map, Image:Tvmarkets.gif, both Los Angeles and Orange Counties are in blue and the "pinkish" counties are in fact Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. --Oakshade 16:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some pointers on reading the Tvmarkets.gif map:

• There is no "Palm Springs County" in California. If there were, you'd think there'd be an article called Palm Springs County, California. (responding to a point that wasn't corrected before the edit conflict)
• The Palm Springs media market, in dark reddish brown, covers only a small portion of Riverside County. The rest, including the city of Riverside, is in the blue-tinted L.A. market.
• The pink area you refer to is the Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-San Luis Obispo market, #122 at List of television stations in North America by media market and mapped in detail here.
• If it's light blue on Tvmarkets, it's in the L.A. market. Orange County is light blue. Therefore, Orange County is in the L.A. market.
• Take a look at List of television stations in North America by media market. Do you see an "Orange County" market? No? Then there isn't one.

szyslak 15:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, yeah, I believed LA was more west. I was wrong, and now, I do believe that they are different TV markets.

However, still, if a team at the northern-most portion of that TV market wins some sort of championship, would it be in the Los Angeles article? Because the World Series and Stanley Cup were won by teams in Anaheim who played in Anaheim and were not known as Los Angeles, it shouldn't be included within the Los Angeles article.

Media markets aside, why should they be mentioned in the article? --Ksy92003 (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We've already established that I was wrong about the maps and color shading. However, media markets don't determine whether Anaheim should be included in Los Angeles.

They may be in the same media market. But Anaheim is Anaheim and Los Angels is Los Angeles. They're two different cities. The championships were won by two Anaheim teams and should only mentioned in Anaheim's article. The teams weren't associated with Los Angeles by the team nor the league nor the city of Los Angeles. --Ksy92003 (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So you were repeately using that media market map as "proof" that these teams shouldn't belong in the Los Angeles article, but now that you've seen the map proves the opposite of your point now you're choosing to ignore it? Ahh, okay. --Oakshade 17:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to accuse me of something? I was trying to use the maps as proof because that's what was given to me by the other user. Originally, my standpoint was that they shouldn't be included because of the different cities and all that. But the other user gave me those maps. I was trying to use those maps to prove him wrong, not to prove myself correct.

I said they shouldn't be in the article last night, long before I was given the map. Don't accuse me of changing my point of view. --Ksy92003 (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

But those maps proved the editor correct and you were wrong; Los Angeles and Orange County are the same media market which you attempted to dispute. As you used those maps as "evidence" of your case and have subsequently been shown the maps prove the opposite, you have now changed your argument to media markets and those maps as being irrelevant. It's becoming impossible to know what your arguments to delete Los Angeles Angels and Anaheim Ducks content from this article are since you're changing those arguements when "evidence" begins proving you incorrect. --Oakshade 19:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My opinion isn't any different. I was trying to use that as evidence because the other user directed me to those maps. I was simply wrong in reading the map, but that doesn't change the fact that I think that they shouldn't be mentioned. If you're in court and are suing somebody, if the defendant gives you information and asks you to try to use that information to prove their case, if the plaintiff can't, does that mean the court case is over? No, the plaintiff would use other information to prove the defendant guilty. If the plaintiff can't prove the defendant guilty with one piece of information, they can have backup information. If one way doesn't work, they can have another way. They can have as much evidence as they want to try to prove the defendant guilty.

In court, there are several ways to prove somebody did something. There's DNA testing, fingerprint analysis, security video tapes, eye-witness, etc. The same thing can be applied to this conflict. Also, in science. When scientists are trying to prove something, if they can prove it any way possible, no matter how many previous attempts they've had, if they can prove something to be true at least once, then it's true. The same thing can be applied to this conflict. Just because I can't prove something one way doesn't mean I can't prove it at all.

If somebody gives you something to work with, and you try to use that but misinterpret it, you can still plead your case with other evidence. I wasn't planning on using that map as my evidence until I was directed to it by the other user. I was wrong, but that didn't change my opinion. It was the same before he showed me the map.

Anyway, here's my point about the conflict. Irregardless of "media markets," I still believe that Anaheim teams shouldn't be mentioned in Los Angeles' article. If the Dodgers or Kings won titles in baseball or hockey, would they be mentioned in Anaheim, California because they're in the same media market? Would they be mentioned in Palm Springs, California or Riverside, California because they're in the same media market I hope you actually answer this question, Oakshade. --Ksy92003 (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes they would. (In case you're wondering, The Press Enterprise is based in Riverside). --Oakshade 01:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And the Orange County Register also has a section devoted to the Dodgers. --Oakshade 01:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that the OC Register has a section dedicated to the Dodgers. The LA Times has a section for the Angels, as well. I am well aware of that.

Another reason why the media markets shouldn't determine if we talk about them here or not is because this is not media. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper nor tv/radio news program. It's our job to contain only encyclopedic information, not media information. Media markets shouldn't determine what is included in each article. For example, if, as you say, something that happens in Palm Springs or Riverside should be mentioned in Los Angeles, California, and if (using the example that created the controversy in the first place) the Angels won the World Series, they would be (in your opinion) mentioned in Los Angeles, California because they're in the same media market. Well then, would we mentioned the Angels winning the World Series in the articles for all cities within that market, like:

1. Long Beach
2. Cerritos
3. Torrance
4. Palm Springs
5. Riverside
6. Orange
7. Los Alamitos

et cetera. If you use the media markets to say that Anaheim winning grants it mention in Los Angeles' article, then you'd have to include it in the articles of all cities within that media market. --Ksy92003 (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that you've completely contradicted yourself by claiming that "media markets don't matter" (see here where you claim they do), it's becoming impossible to know what your arguement is now. On a side note, the content of the Angels and Ducks have been consistantly in this article since June of 2002. That might be a record for any WP content and you're the only person deleting it without any consenus. --Oakshade 05:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, don't forget that we have a special article, Greater Los Angeles, just to handle these regional issues. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur, and I was going to propose this idea before Will Beback mentioned it. In fact, I'll go ahead and move the disputed portion of the "Sports" section (the part that begins with "There were several years that made Los Angeles area sports dominate") to the article Greater Los Angeles Area. The coverage of professional sports in that article is merely a list of teams. That should solve the problem unless anyone's willing to argue Orange County isn't part of Greater Los Angeles. szyslak 05:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to dissagree. There's only one user disputing this. And keep in mind the content has been in this article since June of 2002. Removing it is completely at odds with WP:CONSENSUS policy. --Oakshade 05:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved it in accordance with WP:BOLD. Remember that this is a move of content, not a removal. It's still around, just in another article. Also, nothing in WP:CON says you have to seek approval from other editors before making a change. szyslak 06:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I only said they mattered because when we first began this argument, Szyslak gave me thap map and kinda forced me to try to use that map to give my argument. According to WP:CON:

“ Consensus can change. Each consensus can be a new starting point. You or someone else can make a new edit to start the process over, as often as necessary. ”

This is consistent with what I said earlier about changing my support for my opinion. All that has been done is that I've been proven that Anaheim and Los Angeles are in the same media markets. But nobody has yet to prove that being in the same media market allows this information to be put into other articles.

But you have to believe me on this; the main reason why I disputed this was because Los Angeles and Anaheim are different cities. If we're trying to have a 100% accurate encyclopedia, it seems unprofessional to discuss something occurring in Anaheim within the content of other events occurring in Los Angeles. The first thing I said when I originally removed that content was, "Anaheim is Anaheim. Los Angeles is Los Angeles." Media markets don't matter; which other articles (besides Los Angeles and Anaheim) actually do mention all these championships by the Angels, Ducks, Sparks, Galaxy, and Lakers?

Long Beach only talks about events in Long Beach. Orange doesn't have a sport section Palm Springs only talks about events in Palm Springs. Riverside doesn't have a sports section. San Bernardino only talks about events in San Bernardino. Torrance doesn't have a sports section

Anaheim, California doesn't mention Los Angeles' sports teams anywhere in the article. It doesn't even talk about the Angels' 2002 World Series or the Ducks' 2007 Stanley Cup.

So what if it's been in the article for 5 years? Are you saying that I can't make an edit to a section because it's been around for 5 years? Something being around for 5 years doesn't mean anything.

“ That might be a record for any WP content and you're the only person deleting it without any consenus. ”

I don't need to seek a consensus to make an edit (see WP:BOLD and WP:CON). If it turns out in the end that I'm the only one who agrees with an edit that I made, that doesn't make me wrong for making that edit, as I was just being bold.

“ I have to dissagree. There's only one user disputing this. And keep in mind the content has been in this article since June of 2002. ”

You get all on my case because I removed content that has been around for 5 years. That doesn't mean anything at all. It doesn't matter if it's been on for 5 years or 5 minutes. So don't get all mad at me for nothing, Oakshade. I was being bold and I could do what I did. Greater Los Angeles Area is a better place for that information, anyway. So please, don't get mad at me for no reason. And when you say "There's only one user disputing this," on the contrary, Oakshade...

There's only one user who supports that information being mentioned in the article: you. --Ksy92003 (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, only on this current dispute another editor dissagreed with you. If there were other users who agreed to your point of view, in 5 years WP:CONSENSUS would've changed. But anyway, you're using your first arguement that because those teams are based in Anaheim, they shouldn't be mentioned in an article about Los Angeles. Well, we dissagree. And you dissagreed. Quote from you:

"Again, both the Giants and Jets play in New Jersey but they are the New York Giants and New York Jets. The location in the team's name defines which media market they are a part of. The New York Islanders play in Uniondale, but are a part of the New York media market because of the "New York" in their name. The Tampa Bay Devil Rays play in St. Petersburg, but are a part of the Tampa Bay media market because of the "Tampa Bay" in their name. Teams' media markets are generally defined by the location in their name.--Ksy92003 (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We agree with that statement wholeheartedly. --Oakshade 15:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, that was after I was given the map, which meant I was trying to use that map as evidence. And the only other user involved in this conflict at all was Szyslak and he/she concurred.

No matter how many times I tell you, my original argument was that Anaheim is Anaheim and Los Angeles is Los Angeles. When will you get that through your thick skull? When I first removed it, it was because Anaheim and Los Angeles are two different cities. What happens in Anaheim shouldn't be mentioned in Los Angeles' article. Just get that through your thick skull that that was my main argument before Szyslak brought up the media markets stuff.

Anyway, it's already been moved to a better article so stop arguing with me. It's not gonna help at all. Stop trying to twist my arguments around; I don't appreciate that. Doing that is not a good way of getting your point across. It's not good to accuse other people of changing their opinions because they've been proven wrong. I haven't done that; my opinion is the same as it was Sunday evening: the mentioning of the Angels and Ducks, who play in Anaheim, shouldn't be mentioned in Los Angeles, California's article.

This discussion is over. The information has been moved to a better article and removed from this article. This discussion, therefore, is over now. --Ksy92003 (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Angels and Ducks content is still in this article as it should be. Besides being in technically different cities, you've offerred no reasons as to why WP:CONSENSUS should be changed and the content should be removed. Your "they're in different cities" argument doesn't hold water (this argument is besides "they're in different media markets" which you completely flip-flopped on when you were shown they're in the same media market). The Angels and Ducks play in the same metropolitan area as Los Angeles and they have a large fan base in that city, not to mention being in the same media market which even you argued mattered. As you stated yourself, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays play in and are based in St. Petersburg, but there is no case to delete the Devil Rays content from the Tampa article. --Oakshade 16:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

God, I don't know how many times I've got to tell you this. Okay, Oakshade. I'm going to say something to you now. Read it, eat it, sleep it...

MY ARGUMENT ISN'T ABOUT THE MEDIA MARKETS!!!

And there isn't any consensus. It's one vs. one, which doesn't give consensus. The other major problem is that it's the Anaheim Angels and Anaheim Ducks. Most teams don't play in the city that's in their name, but all teams that have a location in their team name different from the city that they play in play in a lesser-known city. This is aside from the media markets, but Tampa Bay is in their name. Los Angeles wasn't in the Angels or Ducks name, making them different.

It doesn't matter anyway. This argument began before I knew about the Greater Los Angeles Area article. Had I known about that anyway, I would've suggested it to be moved there, anyway. That's a better article because Anaheim is in that area, but they aren't in Los Angeles. Anaheim is its own separate city; additionally, it isn't a lesser-known city.

Just please stop this. There is no consensus either way, as its 1 vs 1. Please, this conversation is over. --Ksy92003 (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to try to erase our memories and claim you weren't argueing that being in the same media market mattered, go ahead, but your flip-flopping record shows otherwise. And it's not one vs. one. If something has sat undisputed for five years and hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of editors read it and choose never to remove the content, that's a very long standing del facto consensus with only one user (you) coming along and deleting it. Besides, just because a team plays in Anaheim doesn't mean it doesn't serve all surrounding areas. These teams serve the city of Los Angeles population just as they serve Riverside or Long Beach. This is why The Los Angeles Times and The Los Angeles Daily News (a Woodland Hills based newspaper no less) devote extensive coverage to the Angels and Ducks, arguably equal to the coverage they give to the Dodgers and Kings. --Oakshade 17:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't say that just because something has been around for over 5 years that there's a consensus amongst everybody... You can't say that you have a consensus just based on something not being changed for a long time. You can't prove that at all.

You can argue this as long as you want. But I am not going to reply back. This argument, for real, is over. The information's already been moved. Despite all your accusation towards me, I still got what I wanted. All that I wanted was that to be removed from this article. It has, and now I have no reason to have any sort of discussion now.—The precedingunsigned comment was added by Ksy92003 (talk • contribs).

The content about the Angels and Ducks you tried to remove is still in the article. If there's an edit war, it's best to put to a vote which I think will go by quickly. --Oakshade 21:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Angels and Ducks

A dispute has been brewing over whether this article should mention the championships won by the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and the Anaheim Ducks. Let's discuss it here on the talk page instead of reverting over and over. I guess one question is, how do we define an "L.A." team? I say it's any team that serves the Los Angeles media market, not just teams that play within the city limits of Los Angeles. For decades, the Los Angeles Lakers played in Inglewood. Does that mean they weren't a "real" L.A. team at the time? And does a team absolutely have to have "L.A." in its name to be an L.A. team? szyslak 14:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My comment is above. The main purpose is that the Angels and Ducks aren't in the Los Angeles media market. They're in the Anaheim and Orange County media markets. --Ksy92003 (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Another main point is that when the Angels won their championship, they were still known as the Anaheim Angels; they didn't change their name until two years later, in 2004. If they are considered a part of the Los Angeles market, which I don't think they do, but if, then it would only be after they changed their name. That was after they won the 2002 World Series. --Ksy92003 (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

They're "part of the Los Angeles market" by virtue of being located in the market. By the way, the featured article New York City mentions the "New Jersey" Giants and Jets. I guess if it really bothers you, you can write a letter to Nielsen Media and ask for a change in its practices. szyslak 14:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, both the Giants and Jets play in New Jersey but they are the New York Giants and New York Jets. The location in the team's name defines which media market they are a part of. The New York Islanders play in Uniondale, but are a part of the New York media market because of the "New York" in their name. The Tampa Bay Devil Rays play in St. Petersburg, but are a part of the Tampa Bay media market because of the "Tampa Bay" in their name. Teams' media markets are generally defined by the location in their name. --Ksy92003 (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So, back when the Angels were the "California Angels," did they "serve" all of California? Did hordes of fans from every corner of the state, from the Mexican border up the coast to Pelican Bay, root for the Angels? If so, did all that change the day they became the "Anaheim" Angels? There's more to defining a team's market area than just its name. You challenged me to find a source linking the Angels (and the Ducks) to the "Los Angeles media market". Now I'd like you to find a source that proves the basis for your changes to this article. That's where the burden of proof is anyway. szyslak 15:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If we're going to compare the New York market sports teams, even the New Jersey Devils are part of the New York market even though they're located in New Jersey and called the New Jersy Devils. szyslak is correct; Just by the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and the Anaheim Ducks location, they are part of the Los Angeles market and both have fan bases in the city of Los Angeles. The Angels heavily markets themself as a Los Angeles team as well as an Orange/Riverside/north San Diego counties team. And both teams are covered as "home" teams by Los Angeles newspapers, radio and TV outlets. --Oakshade 15:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The California Angels served Anaheim because that's where they played. Like you said, the Texas Rangers don't serve all of Texas; just the "Fort Worth/Dallas area."

And I already gave you proof that they are in a different media market; the maps show that Anaheim and Orange County are in a different media market than Los Angeles is. And ironically, you gave me the map I needed to prove that.

The article is "Los Angeles, California," not "Los Angeles media market's sports teams." The article therefore should be about Los Angeles. Like the old saying, "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. What happens in Anaheim should stay in the Anaheim, California article. --Ksy92003 (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

But they serve the city of Los Angeles and market to it. (Why do you think the owenr of the Angeles changed the name of the Anaheim Angels to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim?) That's why they've been included in the article and consensus has always kept them here. --Oakshade 15:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

He changed the team's name before the 2004 season. They won the World Series (under different ownership, mind) in 2002. They didn't consider themselves a part of the LA market until Arte Moreno changed the name in 2004, after they won the world series. It's was previously only mentioned in the article anyway because they won the World Series, which they did as the Anaheim Angels. --Ksy92003 (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The teams were mentioned in the article since June of 2002[3], before they won the world series and nobody except you has advocated removing it. --Oakshade 01:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

shouldn't all LA teams be mention in the Anaheim article since they all share the same media market.Ramgar11 8-04-07 6:06

Proposal to remove content from article

A user is attempting to remove the following sentence from the article:

“ The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and Anaheim Ducks are both based in nearby Anaheim. ”

As this is becoming an edit war, this should be put to a vote.

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of removing mention of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and Anaheim Ducks content from this article.

# Support Anaheim is Anaheim and Los Angeles is Los Angeles. An encyclopedia, like Wikipedia, should include information about only the subject of the article within its articles. The article is titled Los Angeles, California, meaning it should only include information regarding Los Angeles. Information regarding Anaheim should only be mentioned in the Anaheim, California article. --Ksy92003 (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

See comment below; condition in which I would support the inclusion of the information in the article. --Ksy92003(talk) 01:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Under that logic do you advocate removing John Wayne Airport and Long Beach Municipal Airport from the article since they're not within the borders of the city of Los Angeles? (FYI, John Wayne Airport is almost twice the distance from Downtown Los Angeles as Anaheim is). --Oakshade 00:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

support- La teams are not mention in the anaheim article then Anaheim teams should not be mention in the Los Angeles Article.

Survey - in opposition of removing mention of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and Anaheim Ducks content from this article

1. Oppose - Both of these teams are in proximity of Los Angeles, both have large fan bases in Los Angeles and both are in the Los Angeles media market and are covered extensively by Los Angeles newspapers and television and radio outlets. --Oakshade 01:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
2. oppose. This is a problem that keeps cropping up regarding aspects of the region that aren't in the city. Although this article should try to remain focused within the city limits, there are inevitably topics that are important enough to mention, even if technically outside the city. While we do have an artilce on "Greater Los Angeles", few readers are likely to look there. These teams fit the criteria of sufficiently notable topics. However we should only mention them as neighboring teams, not describe their championships, etc. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

1. Comments:
   • I think we're taking the survey route too soon. We've only been discussing this issue for a couple days. Are we so impatient for a firm consensus to emerge? A solution should naturally arise as more editors participate.
   • I support a solution between the two extremes stipulated in this evil little poll. It should at least be mentioned briefly that the Angels and Ducks serve L.A., with discussion of "greater L.A. area sports" in the article Greater Los Angeles Area. szyslak 02:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree on that "solution between the two extremes" and feel they should have a mention. That's what consensus and compromise is about. But one user won't even budge on that. [4] [5] [6]. Something needs to be done to break the stalemate. --Oakshade 02:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I would, however, support a portion of the article saying "Los Angeles is a part of the Greater Los Angeles Area, which has the most professional sports teams of any market. Los Angeles' teams include the Lakers and Clippers (NBA), Kings (NHL), Avengers (AFL), Sparks (WNBA), and Dodgers (MLB). The Angels (MLB) and Ducks (NHL) play in nearby Anaheim, and the Galaxy and Chivas USA (MLS) both play in nearby Carson." I would support this if you mention the teams that play in Los Angeles, then the teams that play nearby like in Anaheim and the soccer teams in Carson, and also mention that they are all a part of the Greater Los Angeles Area. I don't support mentioning the Anaheim teams unless you also mention that they are all part of the Greater Los Angeles Area. --Ksy92003 (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

2000 census

I have spent a considerable time in LA and would like to ask that was the 2000 consensus the last taken in this city? I was there between 2002 and 2006 and hopefully shall return and thus after reading the 2000 report, I can vouch so much has changed. --bandishhh 1:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean the 2000 United States Census. The Census is taken every 10 years, so the next one will be in 2010. The California Department of Finance and the Census Bureau itself have released more up-to-date estimates of the city's population, so that might be worth mentioning here. However, that doesn't mean the Census info should be removed. It's still useful, and still contains valuable information, which I doubt has changed much beyond raw numbers since 2000. szyslak 11:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, szyslak. Yes I did mean that. :) I agree it shouldn't be removed. --bandishhh 11:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

L.A. County Maps

To Anyone Concerned:

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

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

Regards, Ixnayonthetimmay 07:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work! This is a huge improvement on the old PNG maps. I do have one minor quibble: I don't think showing San Clemente Island on the maps is necessary. Although it's part of L.A. County, it has no cities, CDPs or other communities. szyslak 09:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good work, and thanks for doing it. I think that it's helpful to include San Clemente. Folks tend to forget it's part of L.A. Co., and it is inhabited. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

College and university gallery

Other than stoking alumni pride, what purpose does this image gallery serve? Should we include community colleges as well? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Very little at all. I am in favor of removing it, but frankly it is the least of this article's problems. Arcimpulse 23:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Population estimates

I have switched the population in the infobox back to the official US Census estimate. It is lower than the preceeding figure by a significant amount amount. US city articles should be using US Census data for population estimates and figures for the sake of consistency. As has been pointed out, local agencies such as the California department of finance are prone to making overly optimistic estimates regarding city populations, and using these figures when the majority of US city articles use the census data is creating a misleading impression about the size of these cities. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

--This is totally inaccurate!! US census data may be more consistent, but completely wrong, whats the point in publishing wrong information when better info exists???!!! US census is the one that is consistently undercounting due to its lack of recognition of undocumented aliens. See full technical description below before making silly changes!!!

COMPARE THE "METHODOLOGY" UNDER http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Estimates/E1/E-1text.asp (DEPT OF FIN, CA) and http://www.census.gov/popest/topics/methodology/2006_st_co_meth.html I ALSO CUT OUT KEY PARTS BELOW:

Census Bureau demographers estimate each component of population change separately from administrative records including registered births and deaths, federal income tax returns, Medicare enrollees, and military movement. (i.e. no undocumented people!)

California: corrects census omissions and geocoding errors. Driver License Address Change (including undoc immigrants). Housing Units are estimated by adding new construction and annexations, and subtracting demolitions and conversions from the 2000 benchmark or a prior year’s estimate. Account for changing vacancy rates such as adding vacancies in areas with rapid housing growth.

DLAC: County proportions of the state total result from changes in county population values for births, deaths, school enrollment, foreign and domestic migration, medical aid enrollments, and group quarters population.

Ratio-Correlation Method. This method models change in household population as a function of changes in the distributions of driver licenses, school enrollments, housing units, and deaths. Estimates of county group quarters are added.

Tax Return Method.County proportions are derived by the U.S. Census Bureau using matched federal income tax returns to estimate inter-county migration along with vital statistics, group quarters, and other information for the population aged 65 and over.

Administrative records such as births, deaths, driver license address changes, tax return data, Medicare and Medi-Cal enrollment, immigration reports, elementary school enrollments.

California's Population Unit at the Department of Finance raison de être is because US census does the bare minimum to produce estimates. It is funded every year without fail through the $100 billion plus state budget. California requires reports from all its cities and counties every year as to all the above info. US Census Bureau doesn't even know when cities change their boundaries, when people in-state or inter-state, and doesn't count undocumented peoples.

California publishes lots of up to date data on the web, such as [HIV and AIDS cases] for the month just passed, while US lags years behind. Please stay out of this argument if you don't know what your commenting on!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.93.160 (talk) 05:11, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.93.160 (talk) 04:05, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:CITY guidelines, which have been formed for the sake of consistency in wikipedia, the US Census Bureau is the only permissible source for population estimates. No other city article has had a problem with this, even cities, which you as suggest, may be grossly underestimated due to illegals such as El Paso, Texas.--Loodog 21:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

questionable facts

"In a matter of fact, the city has more Mexicans then any city throughout the entire world besides Mexico City, Mexico." I love how Americans assume the superlative of their country to be the superlative of the ENTIRE WORLD. "Hmm... there's Mexico City, and that's the only city in Mexico, right?" Wrong: Metropolitan areas of Mexico.--Loodog 21:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is a common claim about Los Angeles - that it is the second largest city of many nationalities. L.A. has a total population of 3.8 million, and the population of Guadalajara (the 2nd largest city in Mexico) is 1,651,417, so L.A. would have to have 1.7 million Mexicans. While it's possible that L.A. has that many people of Mexican descent, I'm not sure that it has that many people of Mexican birth. Depending on how we define a "Mexican", this claim is reasonable. However it should be sourced and we should also include the similar claims for other nationalities. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course. Seeing as how LA (3.8 million) has 46.5% hispanics, this could be true assuming LA has no non-Mexican hispanics and no hispanics native to this country.--Loodog 00:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Encarta says:

• After 1965, the Hispanic (often called Latino in California) population grew rapidly. The Mexican community is particularly significant, making up 79 percent of the region’s Hispanic population. More Mexicans live in Los Angeles than in any city except Mexico City. The region has also attracted large numbers of immigrants from Central America. People from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua form the largest Hispanic communities after those of Mexican origin. [7]

That's probably a sufficient source, though tertiary sources are not as desirable as secondary sources. A good source says:

• It is the second-largest Korean, Filipino, Mexican, Armenian, Salvadoran and Guatemalan city. More Samoans live in L.A. than in their homeland. There are 800,000 Canadians, 350,000 Iranians, 100,000 Thais, 350,000 Filipinos, 300,000 Chinese, 450,000 South Koreans, 390,000 Japanese. Immigrant Hispanics from 10 nations number 1.5 million. Children in Los Angeles city schools speak 91 languages. More than 50 foreign-language newspapers circulate. [8]

Some of that info is just plain wrong - for example, the second largest city in the Philippine has over 700,000, so L.A. can't be the 2nd largest Filipino city. We should definitely include this info in the article, but we'll need to research it carefully. . ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, for some reason this city more than others is subject to fantastic claims about its racial makeup. Never could understand it. Wait, that data contradicts itself. If 79% of the 46.5% of 3.8 million are Mexican descended, you've got fewer than 1.4 million of 'em. Guadalajara has over 1.6 million. You'd need 94% of LA's hispanics to be Mexican to beat Guadalajara.--Loodog 02:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

These numbers are fishy: the populations of foreign nationals listed above adds up to 2,740,000, not including Hispanics. Since it dates from 1992, that would mean that the percentage of foreign born would be over 100%. These numbers may refer to the county or metropolitan area, but I think the reporter was simply sloppy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think they mean the entire Los Angeles metropolitan area of 13 million people, far more than any metro area in Mexico besides Mexico City. If they do mean the metro area (which is likely due to the confusion surrounding the differentiation between the city and the metro, the latter often being referred to as "city of Los Angeles"), then all of these claims could be very reasonable. However, I agree, it seems like just a sloppy reporter. Raime 16:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I Like the Revised Article

I am in the NYC area and I like this newley redesigned article. Los Angeles is a city that we have heard of and know that movies are shot there, but we never really get to see what the city looks like or is like. This new article gives us a better look at the city. For once, I see Los Angeles as a true city instead of as a big piece of land with only a little portion (downtown) that looks like traditional American cities.

Movies usually take place in LA 'around' downtown or some place else and they show the skyline, but we never get to see it as a city, city. Looking at the movie The Transformers gives us another view as well. For once I was able to say that LA can look like a true city. I was trying to get more views of the city since it is the 2nd largest in the US, but Chicago seems to have the 2nd most impressive skyline. Now I see that LA has a little something too. I always thought of it as having the 3rd most impressive skyline, even though it is the 2nd largest city. It is good to get another view of the city and other buildings for a change. It is also good to see landmarks. I keep forgetting the landmarks or attractions for the town. Now I can see them. I am sure that some have been left out.

Now if a similar thing could be done for Chicago. I would like to know why that city has so many people, why the buildings are so tall and why they keep building them higher, and what attractions they have besides the buildings. I truly cannot name any Chicago attractions outside of the gangster attractions.

Thanks! I added a lot of the pics to this article, and made it look more pleasing. We've been getting a lot of good editors to fix up the articles! Thanks Again :) Pag293 09:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Seperate Pages for Crime and Environmental Issues

Both Chicago and New York City have separate pages for crime, while New York also has its own environment page. Los Angeles, the second largest city in America, should be given separate pages for these two issues. Both issues have played an important role in the city's development as well as its modern history and culture. Jkfp2004 23:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What an excellent idea. Please feel free to create those articles--Loodog 23:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Attractions article

I've removed the Attractions Article, as there already is one, "Landmarks"

It was also very unaccurate, and listed Disneyland, Six Flags, and Queen Mary in Los angeles, when they are in fact located in neighboring cities, not the city iself. Pag293 09:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

should all LA teams be mention in the Anaheim article.

since the Ducks and Angels are shown in the Los Angeles article because they are in the same media market. should the Dodgers, Lakers, Clippers, and Kings be show has Anaheim teams because they share the same media market. Ramgar11Ramgar11 ~~8-04-07 5:55

This topic has been discussed at length on several occasions here, and on countless other city-related articles. For many years the Lakers played in Inglewood at the The Forum. Yet we all knew of them as the "L.A. Lakers", and if Wikipedia had been around then it would have mentioned the team in both the L.A. and Inglewood articles. The greater Los Angeles area contains dozens of cities. If we practiced "reciprocity" in all matters that would mean having dozens of nearly identical sections on media, sports teams, museums, colleges, etc. The compromise is to put most of that info just in the article on the principal city in the area. In addition to L.A., Long Beach, Anaheim, and Santa Ana are all major cities of their own, and so some of this information is indeed worth reproducing there. It could be simply stated that "many major sports teams play in the vicinity, including:..." and then list all of them within a radius, or even simpler, "Anaheim is only X miles from the sports and cultural resources of L.A." If we want to devote extra space to sports teams in the Anaheim article it may be better to list more local teams, like amateur leagues. That's information that we would never have in the L.A. article, so there's no possibility of redundancy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Caltech?

No mention of Caltech? 8/11/07

Cal Tech is in Pasadena but I would have no problem of a sub-article stating that some well known Universities, such as Cal Tech, are in the L.A. Area.

Proposal to post only official U.S. Census Bureau population data not "estimates"

This will help stop the arguments about city population. I think one estimate of over 4 million should be allowed. The U.S. Census Bureau takes official results every ten years (the last being in 2000, and the next due in 2010) interim data provided from the bureau are labeled as estimates [9]. College Watch 23:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

We post the latest Census estimates. No other city article on wikipedia has a problem with this.--Loodog 06:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I and others have a problem with it because they are not accurate and highly variable. The city limit sign show different numbers than on this site. Until dispute is settled, only "offical" U.S. Census Numbers will be allowed to be posted I agree with College Watch LA Editor 06:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• This user has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of User:College Watch. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sockpuppet, except that if LA or California likes to overestimate, it won't be by the same amount Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania or Cleveland, Ohio does. Los Angeles will just have to accept having declared population of less than 4 million just as Philadelphia accepts having less than 1.5 million.--Loodog 22:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we can treat the U.S. Census Bureau estimates as reliable and consistent across cities. Individual cities have a motivation to inflate their population so their estimates may not be reliable or consistent. We should not wait a full ten years to update the populations of places though if we have better data available. If need be, we can post the 2000 census data along with the latest, best estimates from the Bureau or even, less reliably, the city or state. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Will, that wasn't the issue. College Watch/LA Editor would say "let's keep official census only", but then put a local estimate in the lead as a way of getting a statement in the intro that LA had over 4 million.--Loodog 12:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I still believe that the "official census" should be listed with a corresponding estimate (perhaps the current estimate of 3,849,378 with a statement that some estimates project the city to have over 4 million.) Whatever the most accurate estimate the board is coming up with seems debatable. I live in Los Angeles, and every city limit sign that was updated in 2005 says pop. 3,975,456. Current residents and travelers that see the signs and the read the WP article may be confused. Any other user concur? College Watch 20:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the statement that "some" estimates project over 4 million was what I was objecting to in the first place. I'll accept anything you put on the page that the US Census Bureau has on record. Nothing else.--Loodog 20:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Featured article

this article should be a featured article. put it up as one. you really should. Jimblack 05:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)jimblack

I removed text which looked like a malformed FAC nom, but was placed inside another FAC. I didn't take the effort to create a correct FAC submission, as this article doesn't appear anywhere near ready for WP:FAC. Text below was removed from within another FAC nomimation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Los Angeles

- - Comment: Very well done. Nice length, good writing. I think this should definately be featured. Nice detail too. Jimblack 05:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Jimblack

I will deliver quick driveby on tags on this article, hopefully demonstrating its lack of preparation for FA status.--Loodog 01:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There are more unsupported facts than supported ones in the history section and odd juxtapositions like "Los Angeles was the first city where AIDS was discovered in the 1980s and the center of many hair metal bands of the decade" are found. Prose has room to improve.--Loodog 02:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Address the cite needed tags, the unreferenced sections, and remove false claims like "Los Angeles has the largest African-American community in the country", clean up the prose, and I would consider supporting this for FA status.--Loodog 02:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That was in Western United States, not in the country. Agtaz 04:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that word "Western", but how about "Los Angeles has the second highest population of Jews in the United States"?--Loodog 12:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what about when it comes to interracial couples within the city? Agtaz 21:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally love the article because, it's my hometown (my POV), but realistically, the problem here is that many of the edits are not sourced or verified and some edits are leaning a little towards POV (ie demographics), plus many edits are featuring things, places, or events outside the city, thus making the article longer than it should be. If needed, I will love to help to make L.A. to FA status. --Moreau36 20:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Recording

This article is SCARY to record. I can do Spanish pretty well but Franciscan and Portugese? Yikes. Do you people mind if I butcher half the words? I mean..... it's an international city, a featured article, this is probably a very important article to record but I have to stop every two seconds and think about how to pronounce something. What is your opinion? Record for the sake of having the recording or wait until an expert on these various languages and names come along? Davumaya 05:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything has an Anglicization. Use it.--Loodog 16:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the article recently achieved GA status and now looks a lot better (conforming closer to my Minneapolis FA article). I shall record! 75.72.162.175 19:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations

This article is written very well and has great images (my favorite part), but before it can become a FA the {{Fact}} tags must be addressed, or the non-credible statements removed. I have no intentions to delist this from GA, but someone more sensative to this issue than I just might. I'm avaliable to help if needed. Best, Happyme22 21:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Coding into HTML is censorship really

I removed a large, all capital letter (shouting?), demand to use statistics that conform to US census and a threat that any change will be "quickly reverted". This type of editing is distructive to wikipedia's "anybody can edit any article" foundational principle and is really an attempt to censor thought and opinion by over riding the discussion talk page; not to mention it confuses newcomers who want to learn how to edit articles and there is no wikipedia page that explains this sort of in-text coding. Plus it just makes the article look amateurish and petty, where debate has failed to form a consensus. Only persons with personal axes to grind need to resort to this sort of thing in my opinion, and the practise should be discouraged.--Mikerussell 15:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you've just broken WP:3RR. Do not edit war while a topic is being discussed. Though I will not report you since your intentions seem good.

You need to learn how to count. Next time you revert it you will be the one breaking the WP:3RR, so please report it then, will you. Moreover you reverted my edit blindly. I think the term "more" affluent is better then "extremely" when talking about neighborhoods. What does "extremely affluent" mean? 1M, 10M, 100M? More affluent is better because it is just a relative term, noting some areas in LA are wealthier then others. Plus why not include Westwood; it’s near UCLA and very well known neigberhood with its own well written article. --Mikerussell 19:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion above concerning this. While that was the only thing to make it to the talk page, far more people would undaunted ignore the discussion and continue to post California Dept of Commerce estimates since those put the population over 4 million. Some guy even made a section on the California estimates, boasting that Los Angeles was the "second city in American history to achieve this population". I was reverting it everyday because some new anon had the creative idea to change it. No other city article has had any issue with this. On the issue of estimates, there is no discussion, and there are no constructive edits to be made. WP:USCITY and every other US city article on wikipedia, as well as assured concensus only allows US Census estimates and not locals. Following official policies on wikipedia might be argued to be censorship as well such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks, yet this is tolerated in the interests of preventing disruption, which is exactly the intent here.--Loodog 19:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point because basically you have admitted that you are censoring wikipedia with your above comment (you feel personally justified to do it, I guess, which is something very different than collective policy decisions) and that you are involved in the an "edit war" or at least have let some other users goad you into preposterous actions that make the article seem foolish to others when there is no any current discussion under way. I read what was above; the issue is over- let it go. It really just makes you look silly to be insisting you need to bash people, even an anon editor with things like "17,775,984 IS A SMALLER NUMBER THAN 18 MILLION". What the heck does that mean? You need to get a perspective on it. So I hope you take it out yourself, or don't reintroduce it because I have made my point and don't really think the earth will crumble if my way doesn't prevail here.--Mikerussell 19:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to take this so seriously, but before that notice, users would routinely say the larger metro area has a population of "Over 18 million", then citing the census source, which blatantly contradicted that. I'd really rather work on other things on wikipedia than the reverting constant ignorant changing of information of which there can be no mistake regarding concensus. Feel free to do it for me.--Loodog 19:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to "I told you so".--Loodog 21:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable People

Does anyone want to waste a few hours and add a "notable people" section to this article like most cities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.230.161 (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Unlike the vast majority of cities, Los Angeles has numerous "notable people" that it would be impossible to incorporated into this article. I would be extremely too long. --Moreau36 00:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, celebrities move in and out of Los Angeles at such an insanely high rate (e.g. David Beckham) that such a list would be nearly impossible to keep current. Such a section should NOT be in this article unless someone is willing to volunteer the HUGE amount of time needed to keep it updated and free of vandalism. --Coolcaesar 07:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if we decide to go with someone who was born and raised there, that will still be too many folks. I agree, lets keep it out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

For those who're interested in such things, we have List of people from Los Angeles and Category:People from Los Angeles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hispanic majority?

Maybe someone can help me with my logic. An editor classified LA has having a Hispanic majority with 46%. Someone reverted that saying there must be at least 50% to be a majority. Consider the example if group W was 20%, group X was 20%, group Y was 20%, but group Z was 40% for a total of 100%. In this case, isn't the group with the largest percentage the majority, even though it has less than 50%? Alanraywiki 04:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the usual definition of a majority is 50% +1. A group which has the largest number of members, but less than 50% of the population in question is a plurality. If the Hispanic population of Los Angeles is 46%, that is a plurality (assuming no other group has more than 46%). Vgranucci 05:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to move disambiguation page

Los Angeles (disambiguation) → Los Angeles — I know some of you will groan at the sight of another move proposal . Yes there have been several unsuccessful proposals to move this article to Los Angeles and I am guessing there won't be much consensus for it in the near future. I tried to get this move done but an admin requested I find consensus on this page first. What I am proposing is that the disambiguation page should be at "Los Angeles" because an uninformed reader is more than likely to be using this as a search term than typing in "Los Angeles (disambiguation)". Please note I am not suggesting we move this article to "Los Angeles". Green Giant 21:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Double oppose. Oppose both moving Los Angeles (disambiguation) to Los Angeles and having the discussion here as opposed to being at Talk:Los Angeles (disambiguation). Georgia guy 22:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• I would have put the discussion at Talk:Los Angeles (disambiguation), but the only reason this discussion is here is because of the admins request when declining my speedy request at [10]. Green Giant 23:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• In fact you are right, and I shall simply copy this over to the correct page. Green Giant 00:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Annexations.

I don't like this sentence: "In 1915, Los Angeles began the annexation of dozens of neighboring communities without water supplies of their own." First, it is too vague (dozens? how many?) Second, the process of annexation is normally a joint decision. In other words, the petitioning area asks to be annexed, and then it is annexed. Passive voice is very good here. GeorgeLouis 06:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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 [11]. 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 [12]. 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.[13]

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.wiki.x.io/wiki/New_York_City

http://en.wiki.x.io/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.wiki.x.io/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.wiki.x.io/wiki/Washington,_D.C.

• Beijing too

http://en.wiki.x.io/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:[14]

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?

The following is a closed 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 for either of the four options. There appears to be a majority prefering a/b to c/d, which indicates there is likely sufficient consensus that Los Angeles primarily refers to the city, however there is inadequate consensus to decide whether or not it should be a redirect. That may be a moot point, however, if the broader topic mentioned in the previous section achieves consensus. Shereth 15:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Well how it is done all over is to have the dab page at the main article space. Some cities do have the dab page at the main name space. There are even cases, where the primary topic is not at the main name space. One suggestion that has been made for cities that have their name commonly used to also include the surrounding areas is to keep the dab page but create a short article at the main name space that provides more information about the various uses. You would provide a paragraph on the various uses using the {{main}} tag to direct readers to the correct page. I have mixed feelings about this since it apparently makes the work for the dab team harder. And that is another point that has not been discussed. If the main name space is the dab page, the team that corrects these links have tools to allow them to more quickly change the articles to point to the correct article. If you have an article or redirect at the main name space, it is more difficult to find errors and then correct them. Remember that many readers may not know that they have arrived at the wrong LA article. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You say, "... how it is done all over is to have the dab page at the main article space. Some cities do have the dab page at the main name space." Actually, very few dab pages are at city names, and when they are it's not, so far as I know, because of potential confusion between the city and the metro area, or the city and some other larger political entity (like a county), which is why you are arguing many U.S. cities (including Los Angeles) should not be Cityname. By your argument even Paris and London should be dab pages (because those names are often used to not refer to the respective city per se, but to the general area in which each city is located). If you're serious about that, you should be making that argument at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) and proposing that this convention apply to all city articles in Wikipedia, not just certain individual U.S. cities, or just U.S. cities in general. Until you have achieved consensus on your view, I don't see how any basis to apply it to any city individually. --Serge (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Results so far

As I expected, Arthur Rubin and Vegaswikian are the only ones who strongly support c/d over a/b. Jao's support for (d) is contingent on finding that the city is not the primary topic for "Los Angeles". Everyone else so far voted for a or b, indicating there is strong consensus that the city is the primary topic for the name. I submit that this is sufficient basis to not remove Los Angeles from the list of cities being considered for moving each from [[Cityname, Statename]] to [[Cityname]]. That is, it should not be removed from the list based on the argument that the question of whether the city is the primary topic is not resolved. --Serge (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's add all the hat notes to the article, wherever it is. Just pointing to Los Angeles (disambiguation) for other uses is clearly inadequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no certainly agreement above that all of the six other uses besides the city (Downtown, other communities, post office area, county, metro area, and Greater L.A. area) are widely used meanings of "Los Angeles", so a single hatnote link to the dab page (and another to L.A. (disambiguation)) to clear up any limited confusion that may exist is sufficient. Cheers, Rai•me 22:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The current situation is anyone typing in "Los Angeles" or "L.A." goes through a redirect to the page about the city which has a single hat for the dab page. So even if we do nothing other than put the page directly at Los Angeles we'd be no worse off than we are now. Having said that, I could see adding hat notes for the county, greater LA area, maybe downtown, and the dab page itself, but that's probably it. The other uses on the dab page are much more obscure. But that's the case regardless of whether the move currently still in question (in the backlog at WP:RM) goes through. --Serge (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

One hatnote is sufficient. All of the other possible "Los Angeles"es are in the dab page anyway, so adding all hatnotes is redundant, would clutter the page, and I'm pretty sure that suggestion is a last-ditch effort by Arthur Rubin to prevent the move. Consensus has determined that this article should be moved to Los Angeles. --Pwnage8 (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's almost certainly not true that the city is the most common usage of the name. Propbably the metro area (which doesn't have an article, improperly redirecting to Greater Los Angeles Area) would be the most common usage for non-locals. But, with a few additional hat notes, it's not too surprizing at any of the options. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the city proper. You might be looking for the larger Los Angeles metropolitan area or the Greater Los Angeles Area. For other uses, see Los Angeles (disambiguation). That (or something similar) is certainly not too cumbersome to try if it can create agreement on the move issue. Of course, this information is already in the lead, but if some feel a need to have it in a hatnote too, then what's so terrible about that? -- Jao (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, when you put it THAT way, it's actually a good idea. I'm onboard. --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:22, 20 October 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.

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.

See Talk:Global city#Alpha City/Beta City and Talk:Global city#Proposal to delete references to "Global City" in city articles. Apparently, the wording here should simply be updated. -- Jao (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)