Talk:Los Angeles/Archive 3

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  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.
===Discussion===
*A perennial topic. For previous discussions see 
**Talk:Los Angeles, California/archive1#Disambiguation
**Talk:Los Angeles, California/archive1#Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names)
**Talk:Los Angeles, California/archive2#Silly redirect
**Talk:Los Angeles, California/archive2#Requested move. 
*:Personally, I don't see how a change in the guidelines for Canadian cities makes much of a difference for U.S. cities. older ≠ wiser 19:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move #2

message: *A perennial topic. For previous discussions see 
**Talk:Los Angeles, California/archive1#Disambiguation
**Talk:Los Angeles, California/archive1#Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names)
**Talk:Los Angeles, California/archive2#Silly redirect
**Talk:Los Angeles, California/archive2#Requested move. 
*:Personally, I don't see how a change in the guidelines for Canadian cities makes much of a difference for U.S. cities. older ≠ wiser 19:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I noticed while reading the article about Mexico City that the infobox lists both the official population of the city and the population of the "Greater Mexico City Area". This article does not give the population for the greater Los Angeles Area, which I have bee told is borderline on the 15 million people mark. If someone could get the exact number, I think it'd be valuable to add this information as listing the population at "only" around 3 million people gives the feeling of the city and surrounding areas as being much less populous than is the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.237.151.26 (talk • contribs) .
Also, the city, state and Federal governments estimate that millions of undocumented aliens live in this country and that many of them (possiblly several hundred thousand) live in the greater Los Angeles area. Obviously, this is a sensitive issue and we should always strive to be unbiased - I'm not looking for racism here either - but it's a big issue and should be noted both where the city population is concerned and as a general issue.
:We already have an article on the Greater Los Angeles area.  The city article has already been pared down in the past but it is still too long.  We do not need to reproduce the population discussion in Greater Los Angeles in the city article.  However, I agree that adding a second number to the infobox may be all right, though, as long as the estimate is accurate.  Perhaps using the Census metro area data might work. --Coolcaesar 04:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Los Angeles metro area population is already mentioned in the lead section and infobox. The population figure is 12.9 million as of the 2004 U.S. Census estimate for the Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana MSA. —RJN 04:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population + "Undocumented Aliens"

message: Does this section really add anything? We already have links, navigation boxes, and categories that list neighboring communities. -Will Beback 18:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that the section should be deleted.  It was apparently added by a newbie unfamiliar with Wikipedia navigation conventions.  Anyone else concur?--Coolcaesar 20:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surrounding cities 

message: Why make a point of separating out Anaheim sports?  The other teams that play outside the city of Los Angeles aren't marked as such.  It can't be the name - Club Deportivo Chivas USA doesn't have "LA" in its name, and doesn't play in the city of LA, and yet nobody bothers to tag them as being a Carson franchise.  
Let's keep all the teams together.  They're Los Angeles teams, playing in the Los Angeles market and covered by the Los Angeles media.  --Chancemichaels 03:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sports franchises outside of the city of LA

message: Doesn't Los Angeles have any sister cities? Why sigh, cutie pie? 06:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite a few: List of sister cities in the United States#California. --Usgnus 21:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: For some reason, this was moved to a separate article, though I am not sure why since it's very short and does not contain in detail information (just a list of the sister cities really, with a photo). The general consensus among other city articles is to put this information in its own subsection in the main city article, so I've moved this back into the article. Dr. Cash 20:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sister cities

message: I am trying to work on a large City Strawpoll to end the feuding about larger cities in the United States. Please visit the page, User:Ericsaindon2/Sandbox and leave comments on the talk page, but dont edit the actual page. After it has been modified to satisfy the community, I will go ahead and open it. But, please review it and comment, to avoid controversy over its structure. I hope to open it in a few days after discussion, so please be timely in making your comments. Thanks. --Ericsaindon2 05:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will this debate ever end? Dr. Cash 20:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This debate will not end as long there are a majority of voting editors who insist on the convention to use the city, state even when there is no known ambiguity issue -- when the city article redirects to city, state anyway.  If you want the debate to end, then support suspending that guideline.  --Serge 21:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, you do not agree with the current consensus, and will continue debates on numerous city pages until you get you way, even it requires a city-by-city change. BlankVerse 11:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. I do not agree that there is a consensus, or that there has ever been one, to use the city, state format when there are no ambiguity issues.  If there were such a consensus, then we would not see this debate go on and on.  --Serge 03:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Large City Strawpoll Construction

message: I'm sure someone can find a use for material from this in the article: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_21_28/ai_n16484655 
:"25 largest food and beverage chains have 3,773 locations throughout Los Angeles County"
Hope this helps. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restaurant groups: ranked by L.A. County units 

message: Specifically this: " People have long been attracted to the world-class city for its balmy weather, unique and vibrant lifestyle, laid-back energy, Pacific Rim Gateway status, and the hope of realizing the 'American Dream.' "
Well it's poetic and so maybe I'm just being a spoil-sport by complaining about it, but it does strike me as being a bit unencyclopedic for two main reasons. One, I don't know what 'laid-back energy' or 'unique and vibrant' mean exactly, and two, they must surely be subjective judgements anyway. There might also be a further issue about sourcing.
:I concur.  It does reek a bit of original research.  Although it is partially true, it needs to be cited  to a particular published source.  --Coolcaesar 13:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  Remove it, it's a line for a travel brochure if anything.--Loodog 06:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second opening paragraph - not NPOV? 

message: Previously the section referring to private colleges read 'private colleges in the city include...' however this was somewhat inaccurate as several of the schools listed are not actually located within the city proper (i.e. Pepperdine in Malibu, Caltech in Pasadena). I changed it to 'in and around the city' and added Art Center in Pasadena, just wondering if you guys think this solution is better than removing the non- LA city proper schools. Decafpenguin 09:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on colleges 

message: "Many movies and songs about Los Angeles depict the notion that the city is home to a large number of gangsters and professional criminals, which is true, but the number of criminals in the county is relatively small."
Oh, so the large number of gangsters and criminals is relatively small.  Gotcha.--Loodog 02:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory sentence? 

message: I propose adding such a section. I submit that "LA" occupies a unique place in American culture, as does NY, Chicago, and some other cities, and this deserves to included. I would be glad to *try* to do this myself, if there is positive feedback. If not, that's fine too. Jco94052 05:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Arts and culture of Los Angeles, which I believe covers some of it. Also List of movies set in Los Angeles. -Will Beback 05:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was no consensus. Yes, I know I participated in this discussion, but I still think it's entirely okay for me to close it as I !voted strong support, opposite the outcome. I would strongly suggest that, if someone wants to continue this discussion, this be discussed more at the talk page for the city name convention page, as suggested by some of the oppose !voters, and that a long break be taken before another formal move request is put forth for this article. As of right now, both sides are holding their ground and thus any attempt to bring the two sides together is likely going to be fruitless. -- tariqabjotu 04:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed added section: Depiction in popular culture 

message: *:Musicpvm, the "unnecessary discussions" to which you refer keep popping up at cities that have , state in their name, not vice-versa.  The "consistency across all U.S. [city] articles" that use of the U.S.-centric comma convention creates also creates an inconsistency with cities in most other countries.  This is not the U.S. Wikipedia, it's a worldwide Wikipedia.  The same conventions should apply to all cities in Wikipedia, not a separate inconsistent convention for U.S cities only.   --Serge 19:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Musicpvm

message: Full disclosure...  I wasn't going to canvass, but then noticed that [edit: some] opposition votes came in all of a sudden [edit: relatively speaking, not literally all at once] together.  Sure enough, they [edit: the ones I noticed, not ALL of the opposition votes] were all notified on their talk pages about this vote by a certain user.  So I went ahead and notified on their talk pages all those who recently voted on the Philadelphia move, and had not voted here yet.  --Serge 18:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your entire user page is devoted to canvassing votes on this crusade: to say you haven't done so is disingenuous. Jonathunder 18:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw this on WP:RM.  I think Serge needs to retract his comment, and possibly cancel the "vote" and restart it no early than a week from now.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By "canvassing" I meant posting notifications on user's talk pages. I have no reason to hide my agenda, which I make known on my user page.  At least I don't deny that I have an agenda... --Serge 18:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote Canvassing

message: I just stumbled across this discussion am amazed about the amount of energy and passion that this issue has raised.  Why bother?  There's a redirect, people have no problem finding the article now, and will have no problem finding it if it is renamed.  There's a value to following convention, but conventions can also be ignored for good reason.  Both sides have their points, but does it really matter?  Energy would be much better spent improving articles than having repeated arguments about very minor details.  I vote an emphatic I don't care. -- Samuel Wantman 18:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All people care with different degrees about different issues.  Some of us think the issue of how Wikipedia articles are named is important, others don't think it's very important at all.  Reasonable people can disagree.  It takes all kinds, and it's all good.  --Serge 19:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Observation

message: There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada. --Serge 05:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This proposal would allow for this article to be located at Los Angeles instead of Los Angeles, California, bringing articles for American cities into line with articles for cities such as Paris and Toronto.--DaveOinSF 16:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: However the proposal would allow U.S. cities to be inconsistent with the vast majority of other U.S. cities and towns, which (with a few exceptions) all use the "city, state" convention. -Will Beback 23:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries

message: Greater Los Angeles mention is roughly missing on the introduction even if it has its own wikipedia page, it must appear clearly on Los Angeles introduction. Population should appear as follow in that part :
* City of Los Angeles : 3,976,071 as January 1, 2006 estimates (Source: California Dept. of Finance; Demographic Research Unit)
* Los Angeles County : 10,245,572 inhabitants
* Greater Los Angeles : population of over 17 million 
I think it's ok if we could only show City of Los Angeles and Greater Los Angeles together (the city and the area population). Los Angeles County is more like administrative figure, we all know population spread over its limit (Orange Co & San Bernardino Co). Readerweb 19:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greater Los Angeles mention 

message: The article says that the name is Spanish, so shouldn't the correct Spanish spelling be the name? Or has it officially anglicised itself over the years, or never had the accent to begin with? Anybody know? Thanks. --Speakslowly 06:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current official name of the city, as contained in the city charter, is "City of Los Angeles". When founded in 1781 the name of the tiny puebla was "El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Ángeles sobre El Rio Porciuncula". Yankee Richard Henry Dana visited what he called "the Pueblo de los Angeles, the largest town in California" in 1834, but I doubt he or his printer were too conerned with accented letters.  The accent may have been dropped after the Mexican American War. -Will Beback · † · 21:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling: Los Angeles v Los Ángeles

message: Is sports and media all the city has to offer?  Why bother placing a picture of the Disney Concert Hall if there aren't any discussion of what it is to begin with.
:Actually there's so much material we split it off into a separate artivcel, but I see the link ot it has been lost. Arts and culture of Los Angeles. I'll go add it back now. Thanks for noticing that. -Will Beback · † · 00:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to know that it's actually somewhere in Wikipedia.  It doesn't solve the problem however that the culture section in the main artcile doesn't even a hint to much larger aspects of cultural life outside sports and media.  I'm sure that a condensed version of the main cultural article can be shoehorned in here.  --Infernalfox 22:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture Section--disappointing

message: I removed the following text from the History section (6th paragraph, 2nd sentence) because it is an unsourced statement (on its main article page) and not mentioned on the HMO page at all!  But, even if this is eventually established as true, that fact alone does not seem significant enough to warrent mention on this summary of LA history.
: "Los Angeles is also known to be the home of the Ross-Loos Medical Group, founded in 1929, which is considered to be the first HMO in the United States."
If anyone thinks I'm wrong (& can clean up & source the linked main articles first) they're welcome to return this to the article. Good luck--RCEberwein | Talk 07:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text: Ross-Loos Medical Group

message: After seeing this map http://ecr.lausd.k12.ca.us/images/ecr_boundary_hi-res.pdf - I wonder if there are parts of LA in the LVUSD? WhisperToMe 19:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Are there parts of Los Angeles in [[Las Virgenes Unified School District]]?

message: What percentage of Los Angeles speaks Spanish, as their mother tongue? Algebra man 17:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish 

message: There are 10 pictures involving Downtown LA, 4 are of the US Bank Tower and 3 of City Hall.  It looks bad.  Does anyone else have other ones not of Downtown?  The "list of district and neighborhoods" main article has a few.--Infernalfox 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Last month I took this one that's on the San Fernando Valley page. (I'm thinking of cropping the top so the horizon is higher.)  While I'd be flattered if a photo of mine is included on the Los Angeles page, I leave the option to others.  --Oakshade 03:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.  --Infernalfox 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture diversity

message: The first paragraph says the city has over four million people, but the source it cites says that it has about 3.8 million. Is there something I'm missing? --Thetanmancan 00:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right.  This has been fixed.--Loodog 02:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  City Population 

message: I would like pictures of the front entrances of:
* University High School (Los Angeles)
* Palisades Charter High School
* El Camino Real High School
* Revere Charter Middle School
* Emerson Middle School
* Warner Avenue Elementary School
* Roscomare Road Elementary School
* Kenter Canyon Elementary School
* Westwood Elementary School
Of course, please take pics of other schools, if possible :) WhisperToMe 06:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Los Angeles school picture requests

message: People keep changing the skyline pic:
Image:LosAngeles06.jpg
Image:DowntownLosAngeles.jpg
File:L.A Financial district.JPG
Image:Downtown Los Angeles-Bunker Hill.jpg
Image:Los_Angeles_downtown_sunset_cityscape.jpg
Pick one and then we leave it, ok?--Loodog 22:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you don't mean my revert of the uncommented anonymous change an hour ago... --Dschwen(A) 22:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that it's best to stay with one pic for at least several months, but this is the mannor Wikipedia works.  The content situation is usually fluid.  Unless there's a lock on editing, the shifting of images might continue.  I'm partial to the one of the left. --Oakshade 00:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation is fluent, but it is an unfair balance. It takes one editor to quickly change the pic for whatever reason, but hundreds of editors to keep it (by not changing it). If you want to act on consensus, you'll have to abolish the rogue picture swappings. --Dschwen(A) 08:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not have one for each day of the week by using the  functionality? --mav 18:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sombody just tried to add the 5th one.  I reverted because it's way too small for the info-box.  If it was made really high-res (like the Griffith Observatory one is), it might be a good addition elswhere in the article. --Oakshade 05:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  skyline choice 

message: Once again there is a proposal to change the Wikipedia's long standing naming convention for US Cities.
There has been a small, but very vocal, and very persistent group of editors who have been trying, without much success, to overturn the "city, state" naming convention for US cities. First they tried at the naming convention level, but failed to achieve consensus for their views. They then changed tactics and tried to change the titles for several US cities, including three failed attempts to move Los Angeles, California, and one each for San Francisco, California and Anaheim, California. The only city that I know where they succeeded (after a couple of different surveys) was Chicago, but even that city has recently been moved back to Chicago, Illinois. 
Now there is a revival of a fairly recent proposal to have the article titles for a small number of cities violate the very long-standing "city, state" naming convention. The discussion and voting are currently going on at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)#Associated Press. Since the past debates have ended up involving a large amount of time for California editors, I hope that they will weigh in on this latest proposal. BlankVerse 11:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change to the naming conventions for US cities 

message: The article states that the area was originally named "El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles del Río de Porciúncula" which includes Los Angeles in it but the article never explicitly states when it became known as just Los Angeles, if that was a nickname for the area, really anything. I have no idea what the correct explanation is but someone who does might want to include the information of when and how is became known as Los Angeles. --BHC 23:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of the city

message: I’m not familiar with the US population censuses of cities….and I was wondering if 13 million was the entire population of LA, or whether that estimate includes surrounding areas and towns???? See here in Australia, the population of the city itself (suburbs, inner city districts) is included….so is 13 million an estimate of LA itself, or surrounding areas as well? RaptorRobot 13:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 3.8 million is the population within the city limits.  18 million is including surrounding areas.--Loodog 15:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Population