Talk:Los Angeles/Archive 2

message: Please, Farenhait-Celsius conversion is to be revised. With an average maximum temperature of 0ºC in January, it more likely to be Helsinki than LA Xareu bs 15:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No wonder it was feeling so cold around here. I've turned up the thermostat on the Celsius temperature averages. Can someone else do the precipitation conversions? Cheers, -Will Beback 22:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  temperatures 

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

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

message: For a previous discussion, see #Original name above. Thanks, -Willmcw 07:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de la Porciúncula 

message: I've retored a section of demographoc info.  It may not be tht critical, but every one horse dorp in the US has the same data, in roughlt the same layout (I was looking for the poverty section) , so it seems crazy not to have it for LA. I've also seperated the standard census data, which is of a known provenance for the rest.  If some of the items I've put seprately actully come from the census they should, of ocurse be moved into tht section. If not, a source or at least date would be useful. Rich   Farmbrough 10:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The figures are correct.  They add up to over 100 percent because "Hispanic" is not a race or a racial group.  A Hispanic person can be of any race—they can be white, black, Asian, etc.   —RJN 23:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The lack of poverty or socio-economic segments on the article is simply a mistake, not censorship or being "P.C.". About how many poor live in L.A. is available on the article: The percentage of individuals/households in income brackets and the lowest level is included. I think 18% is an understatement, since Los Angeles has a poverty issue in South central sections, home to over 1.5 million of the city residents. South central has a disproportionate poor majority (or a misnomer?) then the recent improvements in the standards of living since the L.A. riots (1992) brought new companies and employers into the impoverished area. This isn't possible for a "majority" of south Central residents to be officially poor, but are middle-class or blue-collar levels. 18% out of 3.8 million comes out at 700,000 and the highest concentration of low-income families or persons is on the western end of Downtown, although the "gentrification" process in the last decade may changed all that either. We all know by now by the movies, music, TV shows and pop culture the large number of rich and upper-income brackets in the city, then L.A. appears more middle-class and earn less than $100,000 a year. You have to drive "west" to Fairfax, Westwood, Century City, Rancho la Brea, Brentwood, Bel Air, Pacific palisades and Venice/Mar Plata to find the wealthy who have over a million or billion a year. Don't really call it a POV since I look up this stuff and have traveled across Los Angeles area, so these are closely hard facts. --Mike D 26 19:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: This article does not mention the large Persian-speaking (Iranian, Afghanistani, etc) community in LA. According to certain sources, there are at least 200,000 Persian-speakers in LA, and up to estimated 400,000 in the rest of California. Among Iranians in the US and Europe, LA is also known as "Tehrangeles". The city city has the largest concentration of Persian-speakers outside of Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan.
* http://rawstory.com/exclusives/orr/tehrangeles_iran_capital_expatriates_812.htm
* http://web.mit.edu/isg/PUBLICATIONS/factsheet_feb_04.pdf
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.171.60.11 (talk • contribs) .
:Thanks for the comment and the sources. Actually, the article does mention it briefly. Los Angeles, California#Other demographics. Los Angeles is a special place for many language groups. -Willmcw 06:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also an article on Tehrangeles, as well as Little Persia, Los Angeles, California. If you know more about these issues, both articles do need more detail and we would appreciate your help. BlankVerse 16:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting. Was the Iranian community situated in Beverly Hills? or in Reseda in the san Fernando valley? Please explain where's Little Persia?
I wanted to extend the demographics list to include Native American groups in the city, but number in the hundreds and will take up time and space. I can't limit it down to the city's large Cherokee community or the number of BIA relocatees from the Southwest states in L.A. came by the tens of thousands.  I knew Los Angeles has the largest Laotian and Cambodian communities in the U.S. and back in the 1980's, the Westlake section was a main residence for Southeast Asians after their first arrival in the U.S. If we wanted to expand the demographics list, just keep it brief and compile the sources. --Mike D 26 19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranians and other Persian-speakers in Los Angeles 

message: The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim baseball team should NOT be included in this article since they are technically speaking not actually a Los Angeles team, In fact the team actually plays in the neighboring city of Anaheim which in itself it a separately operated city which is NOT in the City of Los Angeles NOR are they even in Los Angeles County but are actually located in Orange County. It is my personal opinion and feeling that the Angels are trying to leech off a neighboring city by using that city's name instead of the one that they are actually located in and therefore they should not be included in the Los Angeles article. Misterrick 23:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you in some ways: The Angels are not really an LA team, but then again, isn't it true that the New York Yankees don't actually play in New York?  It seems the basis of your objection is that you don't like the Angels though.  As long as the article gives the team's full name (including the "of Anaheim" part, I think it should be there.  People might come to the article looking for information on the Angels thinking they are an LA team. This point of controversy should be mentioned in the sports section if it isn't already. Theshibboleth 01:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: If this page contains a section for History then does it is nonsensical to have a separate page for the History of Los Angeles, California.  The two pages should be merged.
:The section in this article is a short summary. The article at History of Los Angeles, California is much longer and that is with a substantial chunk of history as yet unwritten. This article is already quite long and I don't think that adding several thousand words will improve it. -Willmcw 19:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another vote against the merger.  History of LA is long enough to merit its own article.  Paz.--Rockero 16:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I third that. :) jengod 18:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Like everyone else said, the History of Los Angeles article is far too long to be merged into this one. joturner 05:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I concur.  Practicaly all of the Los Angeles-related articles (Transportation of Los Angeles, History of Los Angeles, etc.) were split off into separate articles because they were getting insanely long.  It makes no sense to merge them back into the main article.  --Coolcaesar 00:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I also oppose merging the history article into the history section. There is too much information in the other article and it makes no sense to merge. Merging it is also inconsistent with other city article pages (like, most of them). Dr. Cash 04:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  A merger is no brainer: Just simply create a new page, an article on the History of Los Angeles (city) in the article, then put up a link to the new article and you're done. This will take a lot of time, unless the history is already written in the article and Wikipedia approves the transfer of info. to a new page. Make sure you copy and paste the city history, because you don't want to accidentally erase it. Believe me, it will hurt. --Mike D 26 19:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge History of Los Angeles to this page 

message: In the opening section it says "...estimate shows the city's population at 3,957,875" - they seem to pretty good in making their "estimate" if they can come up with a number calculated to the last digit. I suggest changing it to "estimate shows the city's population at close to 4 million". Themanwithoutapast 03:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well. Give us the source of the new population estimate. Los Angeles is still the second largest major city in the U.S. and held the title since surpassing Chicago in 1983 when L.A. had 3 million. 
The 20th century was a remarkable period of real estate growth, economic development and progressive community planning, Los Angeles was labeled "the city of the century" to the think tanks in demographics. L.A. county has 9-10 million residents, the most of any U.S. county, doubled from 5-6 million in the 1950's and 15 times than of 1900 when L.A. city had 100-125,000. 
What happened is the movies and entertainment industry was established in Hollywood since 1910 and the Port of Los Angeles near san Pedro opened in 1915, then Los Angeles doubled and tripled in size -- twice until 1940 (over 1 million by 1930, then to surpass 2 million in 1952). 
In the early 1900's millions of Americans from back east or up north sought year-round sunshine, including the rich and famous bought homes in luxurious areas of the "Westside", and the suburban trend of rapid development in the san Fernando Valley, now to house half the city.
Followed by Mexicans hired to work in the city's burgeoning factories, by 1940 an estimate of one million Mexicans lived in the Los Angeles/Long Beach/ Santa Ana area (up to 2 million in Southern California before the Great Repatriations from the 1930s to the 50s), later joined by 250,000 Asians and half a million Blacks came from 1920 to 1960 quintrupled the Black population. 
Also the "dust bowl" refugees from the Southern plains arrived in the 1930's and small but influential immigration from Europe: Irish, Italians, Poles, Armenians and Jews. Asian immigration since the 1970's tripled the size of a community with roots since the 1860's. 
By what population statistics has shown, Los Angeles is a popular place for people to come in and find work, play in the sun or start lives anew. Not a surprise the city has 4 million people and still growing. --Mike D 26 18:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Estimate"

message: ====Support====
# Jibbajabba 07:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: # Jibbajabba 07:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # Strongly oppose for all the reasons that I've already listed when this has been brought up before. BlankVerse 13:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: The core of this entire debate might be Willmcw's claim above that, "Consistency is a valuable attribute of an encyclopedia".  What he seem to mean is that, with respect to the format used to name U.S. city article names, "Consistency is a valuable attribute of an encyclopedia".  But, what he and most of the other supporters of the "standard" naming format for U.S. city names seem to fail to appreciate is that this encyclopedia, Wikipedia, already has a consistent naming policy, which contradicts using a consistent naming format for city names, which is use the most common name.  This is why Cher, for example, is listed primarily under Cher, rather than under Cherilyn Sarkisian, her formal born name.  Insisting on using Los Angeles, California for the sake of a "standard" is inconsistent  with the primary Wikipedia naming principle, and we all agree that "consistency is a valuable attribute of an encyclopedia".  --Serge 18:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although sometimes it seems otherwise, the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. "Los Angeles" is a very ambiguous article name for the City of Los Angeles. Los Angeles, California is an accurate, unambiguous name. BlankVerse 14:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Los Angeles was ambiguous at all, much less "very ambiguous" as you claim, then the Los Angeles entry would not be a simple redirect to this page, which it is.  All arguments in support of a "consistent format for city names", including this one, are contrived and baseless.  You guys just like the look and ease of use (form the perspective of editors) of consistent naming.  It's like designing software from the perspective of the programmer, rather than from the perspective of the user.    --Serge 20:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're forgetting that users are the editors here. Your proposal is also contrived. All naming conventions are a contrivance. Some folks like it, others don't. So far there have never been enough who don't like it to change the de facto standard. So let's get on with creating an encylopedia and stop squabbling about inconsequential minutiae. older≠wiser 22:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal opinion is that since Los Angeles is so ambiguous, and that most people, even many of the people living in the Los Angeles area, are often not sure what is LA City, LA County, etc. that the Los Angeles article should be either the disambiguation page, or a redirect to Los Angeles (disambiguation), although if a survey or straw poll was created over the issue, I am not sure that it would reach consensus. BlankVerse 17:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything's ambiguous. It's just a matter of relativity. (Addressing the ridiculous suggestion that Los Angeles should be a disambiguation page, many major cities have other things named after them, but this does not mean they all need to be disambiguation pages,) I've heard "standards" spoken of, but truly (as has been stated) the article title already breaks standards. The most common name is usually the one used for the article's title. What's more, Wikipedia is supposed to have a world view, and most many large cities outside the US are simply titled with the city's name, suggesting a break with "standards" for the US. If an exception can be made at the country level, why not at the city level. Addressing the "ease of editing" arguments, I am dubious. While currently there are more links directly to Los Angeles, California than to Los Angeles, I suspect that most of the Los Angeles, California links were originally Los Angeles and changed later. Almost anyone outside Wikipedia would say that this article should be named Los Angeles. I think this is one of those instances where Wikipedia has chosen groupthink instead of rationality. Theshibboleth 03:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Value consistency in specific format, or higher principle?

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

message: Is the any particular reason why the IPA pronunciation of the city's name was deleted? This seems to be a pattern across Wikipedia. Theshibboleth 02:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IPA transcriptions were removed as part of a large series of no-summary edits by 24.5.198.246 (talk • contribs • [ page moves] • block user • [ block log]) on December 19, 2005 and December 20, 2005 . I doubt you'll get a response from the anonymous editor, but I would support putting back the IPA transcriptions of the English and Spanish names as found in this revision. The user was advised to "slow down" by both User:Willmcw and User:BlankVerse (both active here), but the majority of the contibutions are still in the article (and the user replied "shush" to BlankVerse on their talk page). Mike Dillon 02:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well then. The IPA's restored. Theshibboleth 07:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching that. -Will Beback 07:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything that IP edited should probably be checked. BlankVerse 16:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  Sometimes these vandals can be really subtle.  --Coolcaesar 16:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Bite! I don't think the anon IP was a vandal, just an inexperienced editor who was doing unwiki and unencyclopedic edits. BlankVerse 17:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The contribs don't look like a vandal to me either. I just used the  template because it's an easy way to get a link to the contribs and talk page for a user. Mike Dillon 19:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA deleted? 

message: *New :Image:LASkyline.jpeg
*Old :Image:LosAngeles06.jpg
The newer image shows a bit more of the skyline, but it looks crooked to me and the foreground is distracting. I think the previous image is better overall. Other thoughts? -Will Beback 00:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted back to LosAngeles06.jpg because LASkyline.jpeg has copyright problems. Besides, it was the better image. BlankVerse 05:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest images 

message: I think it would be nice to have political stats on the people who live in LA from elections.  Also It would be nice to have in that same section some info on the politics of most of the newspapers and any other political information like that that pertains to the city.  If the later seems like it can be a non-bias outlook then that makes sense but I think that the original "political stats" should be put in because it is relevent to the makeup of the city.  What do you guys think? --Kledsky 09:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we have consistent sources for the info then it'd be nice to have that for every city, just as we have the demographics. Perhaps the voting citywide in the last several presidential elections. See Orange County, California, which has a political section. The newspaper info is difficult because there are no objective criteria like a vote count. Our editors try to judge the overall leaning of a paper, but it's an approximation. See Los Angeles Times, for example. -Will Beback 20:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are the administrators in Wikipedia tries to avoid labeling a city being "mostly Democrat" like Los Angeles. I know the historic conservative trends in local and state politics has lot to do with the city's middle American character until the 1950's. Since this is a major city/metropolis, Los Angeles will receive a wide percentage of votes going for Democrats by its' demographics and the influence of Hollywood sides with the liberals on most issues. San Fernando valley and Pasadena used to pull to the right, like most of suburban cities: Especially Palmdale and Lancaster, and westernmost ends (Agoura Hills) was very Republican until the 1990's. Why not listed the political stats of L.A. voters in the last presidential elections (2000/2004) without any bias, but demonstrate what the facts said: Democrats outnumber Republicans in L.A. city?  I figure the Los Angeles county article may inclosed presidential election results, so in that case the city is already covered among 85 other municipalities around Los Angeles "proper". --Mike D 26 19:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics 

message: The article states twenty two sister cities, then lists twenty three. According to Sister Cities International Los Angeles has twenty one sister cities, leaving out Melbourne and Yerevan. Additionally, the City of Los Angeles does not list Tehran, thus specifying only twenty sister cities. Comments?--60.230.88.64 02:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sister city relationships are not a permanent condition. They require supporters on both sides of the relationship and the relationship can end if support wanes. There may have been 22 (or 23) sister cites at one time, but some of those connections may have ended and there are now only 20-21 sister cities. The list, therefore, needs to be verified, and then corrected. BlankVerse 11:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I would think that the most accurate reference to follow here would be Sister Cities International, since they're the 'umbrella' organization for the sister cities. I'm not sure why the local organization removed Tehran, perhaps Tehran removed themselves recently due to all of the recent issues between US-Iranian relations, so it might be worth looking into. Dr. Cash 21:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister Cities 

message: I hope I'm not digging up another long, pointless debate like the Los Angeles, California-versus-Los Angeles stalemate a few weeks back, but I'm thinking we should rename :Category:People from Los Angeles to "Category:Angelenos". As we can see in :Category:American people by city, most such cats are named for the one-word term describing a person from the city; e.g. :Category:Chicagoans and even :Category:Pasadenans. Plus, it's a pretty well-known term. One possible objection is that there are a lot of variants of the term, such as "Los Angeleno" and "Los Angelan". But in my experience I've found they're rarely used. I'm just trying to gauge consensus to see if there's any support for this idea before listing a renaming proposal on WP:CFD. szyslak (t, c, e) 06:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your Category:Angelenos suggestion. It is way too ambiguous and I didn't get it at first. If anything, it should be renamed Category: Los Angeles inhabitants, or something of the sort. Jared 14:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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

message: An anon tried to delete most of the economy section, but he wasn't all wrong. The logic of listing companies depending on whether their city is L.A.-adjacent or not seems odd. I suggest that we create one list with all L.A. County companies of note, regardless of city, at Los Angeles County, California#Economy. This article could retain the names of companies in the city itself. -Will Beback 07:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Economy section started off with just companies within the city, then a whole bunch of idiot newbies began adding companies to the list which were within L.A. County rather than L.A. City.  I hit upon the adjacent/non-adjacent dichotomy as a compromise, but at this time, I agree with you that it would be more coherent to limit the list within this article to companies ONLY within L.A. and to move the rest to L.A. County.  --Coolcaesar 20:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright with me. But a few people added companies based in L.A. turns out was headquartered in adjacent communities. Sometimes we all make mistakes in our error of judgment. Here's a rule: If the company is based in L.A. city, put it in the listing for companies based in L.A. city, not county. Some of us are quite serious on the rules (about the dichotomy when you list things in a city, but turns out in nearby areas aren't exactly within the city you described). I forgive the anon IPs or other users and my advice is check the location of the company, then you won't have problems in editing the page.--Mike D 26 19:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: Is there a reference for basingstoke becoming a sister city with LA? Neither of the following two sources confirm this to be true ,  David D. (Talk) 23:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be a mistake from a previously undetected act of vandalism . David D. (Talk) 23:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Basingstoke

message: Guys, the climate table currently looks a bit ugly. I'm not sure that the alternating color helps, and it (even at 1280x1024 resolution) extends beyond the edge of the page, requiring you to scroll across to see the entire table. This isn't ideal.. It seems that this is due to the attempt to display both inches and millimeters to a decimal placein the rainfall, which extends each column too far. We could round the rainfall data to the nearest milimeter. I may do that right now, in fact - whoever convered from inches to millimeters perhaps didn't consider just how small 0.1mm really is. I'll leave the colour scheme up for discussion, but my preference is something simple and neutral like in Melbourne. Diliff   | (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Melbourne chart is better looking. -Will Beback 19:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate Table 

message: The Los Angeles article failed the following listed criteria of WP:WIAGA.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:
::(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
::(b) the citation of its sources is essential, and the use of inline citations is desirable, although not mandatory;
::(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;
The Copyeditor 03:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is a good article?

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

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

message: 25353 bytes were lost in a rewrite by 68.70.77.107, which I reverted while watching the recent changes.  History was stubified, all of Geography was lost, most of climate and heavily cited portions of Environmental issues, numerous See Also and Main Article links to sub articles, libraries, and the  marker were lost.  Last, there was no edit summary and the editor had no previous edits.  I hope this was appropreate.  Kevin_b_er 06:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Kevin, but there is no need to comment on every reversion of vandalism. It happens all the time, so doing so would unnecessarily fill up the talkpage with such notes. Thanks for your vigilance, --Rockero 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted the article. 

message: I'd posted several images on this page as part of a widespread wiki project I'm undertaking to expand the amount of images available for whatever cities I can manage to do any photography in, but I've noticed that all but the picture of the L.A. Times headquarters have been removed from this page. I don't see anything about it in the discussion, so I've re-posted just one of them--currently the second city hall image. I'm requesting a vote over which city hall image to keep up. Thanks. Techgeist 22:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've got two City Hall pictures, several downtown skylines, and a couple of other downtown photos. I'd suggest that we should ony have one city hall photo. I don't think a photo of the Times building is especially-valuable here, though it'd be great in the article on the newspaper. -Will Beback 04:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  Infernalfox is right that the new photo by Techgeist is absolutely awful.  It was shot on a mostly overcast day at the worst possible angle and with the wrong camera settings.  I would have used 1/240 or even 1/100 shutter speed, for one thing.  A better angle would have been through the wire fence from the other side of the Criminal Justice Center parking lot (I was just there a few weeks ago but didn't have my camera on me at the time).  Plus at the very least the photo badly needs color balancing (which is available in nearly all photo editing programs).  --Coolcaesar 05:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  City Hall Images 

message: I came across a comment in a long words page that LA's full name is EL PUEBLO DE NUESTRA SENORA LA REINA DE LOS ANGELES DE PORCIUNCULA
Is there any truth in this??
Pizzadeliveryboy 15:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there isn't. I checked the city's charter. The official name is "The City of Los Angeles". Every month or two someone tries to "correct" the article. Thanks for asking first. -Will Beback 20:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  full name