Talk:La Jolla/Archive 1

message: I used to live in Bird Rock, a less ritzy section of La Jolla. I have never known of La Jolla to have a mayor or municipal council of any type, except for the "town council", and even then it is always referred to in a "so to speak" tone. Also, the emergency services have always been provided by San Diego. I'd really urge somebody who has more time to look at the City of San Diego website, the County of San Diego website, and maybe the "town council of La Jolla" website. I am sure the answer, between them, is crystal clear. Also my mother and all her acquaintances insist LJ is part of SD. I think it makes perfect sense, even though the ZIP Code is weird. Kind of like how there's a town in North County (San Onofre, maybe?) that is 926xx, which is more synonymous with parts of Orange County. 
I cant back up my stance any further for lack of time and patience, but the truth is with me, and perhaps not wiki. LJ is just a district with a vocal and organized clan of residents. --Coryma 21:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts from a former La Jollan

message: "La Jolla," is a word taken from the language of the local Native Americans in San Diego.  It means "hole," but "the jewel" sounds better to the tourist / realty industries in San Diego, so that's the translation one hears most often.
:I did some checking on this and I think the guy who wanted to sell 400 acres of hilly ground may have just as likely named the place "La Jolla Park", misspelling "La Joya". I think both stories have merit but I'd like to see some documentation on the word "woholle". It sounds like a corrupted English word. Rsduhamel 19:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. -Will Beback 21:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline text 

message: At the top of the article, it states La Jolla is "probably" based on the Spanish La Joya. This is directly contradicted in the Origin/Pronunciation section. I think it should be changed to "Pronounced 'la-HOY-ah' (which some believe is based on "La Joya", Spanish for "The Jewel"; see the Origin and Pronunciation section below)" or something to that effect.
- Ed
I personally think the inclusion of the origin of the name in the first paragraph is unnecessary, as there is already an entire section devoted to the subject further down the article. I'm going to remove the sentence regarding it for this reason. WHS 03:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the name 

message: It is my understanding that if you mail to a PO BOX in the 92038 La Jolla zip code, and write "San Diego" instead of "La Jolla" in the address, it will, or may, be returned.  I also understand that this is not true for residential 92037 addresses (mail to 1234 X Ave, San Diego, CA, 92037, IS delivered).
The sentence saying as much was reverted as being "not necessarily" true.
Does anyone know for sure?
--Serge 00:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't sound true knowing post office practices.  Mail carriers are not rigid about addresses and codes.  Most definitely an urban legend.  lots of issues  | leave me a message 01:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "This doesn't sound true" hardly qualifies as knowing for sure.  If you look up the address for 92037 or 92038 at www.usps.gov, it is La Jolla, not San Diego (look up the zip code for Mira Mesa, Clairemont, Rancho Penasquitos, etc., and you'll get San Diego, not the community).   Look up all the zip codes of San Diego, CA on that site, and you'll get all San Diego zip codes, but not 92037 or 92038.  So the official postal address of La Jolla is, La Jolla, even though it lies within the City of San Diego, and this alone makes it unique.   Whether the postmaster enforces this distinction is another matter.  --Serge 01:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether this rigidity is practiced is everything -- it determines if the statement is true.    lots of issues  | leave me a message 04:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it is two decades since I lived in La Jolla, I am pretty sure that my mail to my street address often had either La Jolla or San Diego and was delivered without problems. BlankVerse 12:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's why I wrote above, "I also understand that this is not true for residential 92037 addresses (mail to 1234 X Ave, San Diego, CA, 92037, IS delivered)."  Anyway, that part is out of the article.  The part about La Jolla being the only part of San Diego whose official postal address is not San Diego is still in there.  --Serge 02:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that first sentence is questionable.  But the sentence about "La Jolla" being the official postal address is simply a fact.  --Serge 06:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, as long as we don't try to extrapolate from it. Have we established that it's the only neighborhood of SD treated this way? Cheers, -Willmcw 09:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mail to PO BOX 12345, San Diego, CA, 92038... RETURNED? 

message: The article says La Jolla has 24,440 people. Where did this precise figure come from? There isn't even a date attached. I'm in favor of changing that to "about 25,000 people" - I'm sure on weekends there are over 25,000 people in La Jolla anyway, and in the summer even higher numbers. I'll make the edit, but I'll wait a bit in case someone has compelling evidence that La Jolla does have 24,440 people. Soltras 16:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: This page seems to resemble the Anaheim Hills, California page remarkably similar. That page has had an enormous amount of controversy about the namesake and the status, and if it should include an infobox or not since the data is readily avalible. I notice that many of the editors that participated in this articles shaping and talk also take interest in the Anaheim Hills article. Maybe one day, (like Anaheim Hills) is trying to do, La Jolla will gain independence from San Diego just like Anaheim Hills will someday. I like the editing of this article as well, and keep representing these small communities well! --Ericsaindon2 05:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anaheim Hills and the Freaky Similarities 

message: Since "La Jolla" (not "La Jolla, California", and certainly not "La Jolla, San Diego, California") is the most commonly used name for La Jolla, since "La Jolla" is not ambiguous, and since "La Jolla" is not a city but a community, I suggest we change this article name back to simply, "La Jolla".
Please vote and sign whether you support or oppose this change.
A vote in support means you agree the name of the article should be La Jolla.
A vote to oppose means you think it should stay La Jolla, California, or be something else like (God forbid) La Jolla, San Diego, California.
Voting will be closed in five days, on June 17, 2006. --Serge 23:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if Takoma Park is the only Takoma Park, then I see no reason to add disambiguation baggage to the article name.  The option | syntax can be used to augment any reference to Takoma Park or La Jolla with additional geographical information, if that is deemed useful by the editor in the context of where the reference is made.  But to have this baggage added to an article name whose first sentence clarifies what it is anyway is redundant, unprofessional, unnecessary, non-standard, contrary to fundamental Wiki article naming principles, and ridiculous.  --Serge 16:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think opposing this shows an attempt at planning and consistency, and there is nothing unprofessional or ridiculous about that.  The guidelines for city article naming shows that this is not "non-standard" nor "contrary to fundamental Wiki article naming principles."  Remember that common usage for someone in Southern California might be La Jolla, but it's a big world out there, and common usage for someone in another state or country would require including San Diego or California, if not both.  I wonder if this argument is going to come up over every article about a Southern California community. Sxeptomaniac 22:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I applaud the "attempt at planning and consistency", but question the efficacy of this particular attempt.  The "guidelines" you refer to are specific to U.S. city article names and are themselves in conflict with the planning and consistency we both value.  These guidelines are in conflict with not only general Wiki article naming principles (use the most common name except when necessary to disambiguate), but with Wiki city naming guidelines that apply for every city in the world outside the U.S.  The "convention" was borne not from "planning and consistency", but out of laziness: the requirements of automated software that was used to automate the creation of the majority of U.S. city name articles from census data or something.   Instead of identifying ambiguities and adding disambiguity baggage (, state) to those names only, it was easier to write the software to add the disambiguity baggage to every city name, whether it warranted it or not.  Once the "bot" software created all those articles, the claim was made that city, state was a standard convention, and expanded to an an even more contrived and ironically unconventional "convention" for communities: community, city, state.  I see no reason to comply with these godawful, inconsistent and contrived guidelines, and every reason to ignore them.  But, I'm obviously in the minority.  Sadly, this oddball "convention" just provides more fodder for Wikipedia critics who cite examples of Wikipedia amateurism like this.  --Serge 01:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason to change is to be consistent with every professional encyclopedia in the known universe and with every Wiki article naming convention used in every category except (for some inexplicable reason) U.S. place names.  Why this reason does not resonate with others I cannot understand.  But it's very disappointing. --Serge 01:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change name to "La Jolla" - Please Vote 

message: *Support --Serge 23:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if Takoma Park is the only Takoma Park, then I see no reason to add disambiguation baggage to the article name.  The option | syntax can be used to augment any reference to Takoma Park or La Jolla with additional geographical information, if that is deemed useful by the editor in the context of where the reference is made.  But to have this baggage added to an article name whose first sentence clarifies what it is anyway is redundant, unprofessional, unnecessary, non-standard, contrary to fundamental Wiki article naming principles, and ridiculous.  --Serge 16:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think opposing this shows an attempt at planning and consistency, and there is nothing unprofessional or ridiculous about that.  The guidelines for city article naming shows that this is not "non-standard" nor "contrary to fundamental Wiki article naming principles."  Remember that common usage for someone in Southern California might be La Jolla, but it's a big world out there, and common usage for someone in another state or country would require including San Diego or California, if not both.  I wonder if this argument is going to come up over every article about a Southern California community. Sxeptomaniac 22:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I applaud the "attempt at planning and consistency", but question the efficacy of this particular attempt.  The "guidelines" you refer to are specific to U.S. city article names and are themselves in conflict with the planning and consistency we both value.  These guidelines are in conflict with not only general Wiki article naming principles (use the most common name except when necessary to disambiguate), but with Wiki city naming guidelines that apply for every city in the world outside the U.S.  The "convention" was borne not from "planning and consistency", but out of laziness: the requirements of automated software that was used to automate the creation of the majority of U.S. city name articles from census data or something.   Instead of identifying ambiguities and adding disambiguity baggage (, state) to those names only, it was easier to write the software to add the disambiguity baggage to every city name, whether it warranted it or not.  Once the "bot" software created all those articles, the claim was made that city, state was a standard convention, and expanded to an an even more contrived and ironically unconventional "convention" for communities: community, city, state.  I see no reason to comply with these godawful, inconsistent and contrived guidelines, and every reason to ignore them.  But, I'm obviously in the minority.  Sadly, this oddball "convention" just provides more fodder for Wikipedia critics who cite examples of Wikipedia amateurism like this.  --Serge 01:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason to change is to be consistent with every professional encyclopedia in the known universe and with every Wiki article naming convention used in every category except (for some inexplicable reason) U.S. place names.  Why this reason does not resonate with others I cannot understand.  But it's very disappointing. --Serge 01:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: VOTES

message: I noticed this line in the article: 'The area was known as La Jolla Park at least as early as 1886.'
I believe I have a reference that predates that. In Les Misérables, published in 1862, **SPOILERS FOLLOW** one character, Thénardier, talks of going to "La Joya":
Il y a en Amérique, dans un pays qui est du côté de Panama, un village appelé la Joya. Ce village se compose d'une seule maison. ... ce pays est dangereux; il est plein d'anthropophages. Alors pourquoi y va-t-on? c'est que ce pays est merveilleux; on y trouve de l'or. taken from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17519/17519-h/17519-h.htm (about 7/8ths of the way down)
My trusty English translation (Fahnestock & MacAfee) says that means:
In America, in a region which is near Panama, there is a village called La Joya. This village consists of a single house. ... the country is dangerous; it is full of cannibals. Then why do people go there? Because it is a wonderful country; gold is found there.
The character then talks about his wish to move to La Joya.
Anyways, my point is, as far as I know, Les Misérables was never revised, so doesn't this illustrate it's existence as early as 1862 ? 208.59.171.97 22:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting, but perhaps Hugo was referring to the "La Joya" in Panama (now the site of a prison), rather than to "La Jolla" in California? -Will Beback 05:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awww, you're probably right. 208.59.171.97 20:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early use of the name 

message: The current name of this article, La Jolla, San Diego, California, though consistent with the unencyclopedic and Wikipedia-naming-policy-violating community, city, state format, is well, unencyclopedic, cumbersome, and violates the Wikipedia naming policy (which says to use the most common name), not to mention that practically no one refers to La Jolla as La Jolla, San Diego, California.  Note the google usage results:
* Results 1 - 20 of about 32,300,000 English pages for "la jolla"
* Results 1 - 20 of about 2,360,000 English pages for "la jolla, california"
* Results 1 - 20 of about 11,600 English pages for "la jolla, san diego, california"
Use of the community, city, state format is an undocumented arbitrary and pointless convention at best, so there is no reason to follow it.  Why not name this article simply by how most people refer to the subject of the article, namely La Jolla?  Why not name this article simply by how all other encyclopedias do it, namely La Jolla?  La Jolla already redirects directly here, so there is no ambiguity issue.  Unless there are objections with well-stated reasons, I will go ahead and request that this article be renamed accordingly. Simply saying one wants it to stay La Jolla, San Diego, California for the sake of following an undocumented arbitrary contrived convention, without addressing the points above about the current name being unencyclopedic, cumbersome and violating the use-the-common-name Wiki naming policy, will not be considered a well-stated reason.  Also, stating the consensus is to name it such-and-such is not a well-stated reason objecting to the points made above.  Reminder: Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy.  Consensus is reached by discussion, not simple statments of opinion by a majority.  See WP:Etiquette.  Thank you.  --Serge 01:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To keep bringing up the same issue again and again isn't productive. Didn't you start a straw poll in June? -Will Beback 01:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This time I'm asking for reasoned arguments, not opinions.  Very different.  --Serge 01:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not name this article simply [[La Jolla]]? 

message: What's our source for the unique treatment of La Jolla by the USPS? -Will Beback 01:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See usps.com. Do the zip code lookups yourself. La Jolla is 92037, 92038, 92039, 92092 and 92093.  Note that La Jolla comes up for all of them, and San Diego for none of them.  Then, search for San Diego, CA, and you'll find the 85 San Diego zip codes for every community in the city of San Diego, except the five zip codes for La Jolla.  Now, take the San Diego community of San Ysidro, California, that actually was its own municipality a few decades ago.  Punch it in and you get 92143 and 92173.  Now punch in those zip codes, and you'll get San Ysidro, but it will also say that "San Diego" is acceptable for those zip codes as well.  It doesn't say that for the La Jolla zip codes.  For every other community in San Diego, the community name is not acceptable at all; only "San Diego" is accepted.  I just report the facts, I don't make 'em up.  --Serge 01:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It strikes me as original research. I think we should leave it out unless we can come up with a secondary source. -Will Beback 05:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post office, again 

message: I cleaned up a few sentences in this section, but the section needs references and additional information (when did the rope go up and when did it go down). If someone knows the full history of the Children's Pool and the seals, it would be nice to have that history added to the article. Orayzio 20:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Childrens Pool and the Seals