Talk:Los Angeles/Archive 4

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Airports 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Area 

message: :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====
#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)
thread_title: Survey

message: #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)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: #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)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

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

message: Is the city doomed to going the way of Atlantis due to climate change? MHarrington 03:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You mentioned Venice/Marina del Rey and Long Beach/Santa Ana, but what about Anaheim? MHarrington 03:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Doomed? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Public Transit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Embarassing Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: Delete it. Jorobeq 07:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Los Angeles Neighborhood Map 

message: 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)
replies: text: Delete it. Jorobeq 07:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: 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)
replies: text: you should post these requests to Wikipedia:Requested_pictures as well. Mfield 05:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LA Picture request 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, it shouldn't be there. -Will Beback · † · 22:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party Label 

message: 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)
replies: text: Maybe the source means 5 principal cities... if anyone actually included a source.--Loodog 01:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 Counties, not Cities 

message: 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  and . 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)
thread_title:  Dubious: Oldest synagogue in Los Angeles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Districts and neighborhoods in navigation box 

message: A user is attempting to remove the following sentence from the article:
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Add any additional comments:
#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)
replies: text: 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.   .  Something needs to be done to break the stalemate. --Oakshade 02:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove content from article 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: # 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Survey - in support of removing mention of the [[Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim]] and [[Anaheim Ducks]] content from this article.

message: # 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)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition of removing mention of the [[Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim]] and [[Anaheim Ducks]] content from this article

message: :Add any additional comments:
#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)
replies: text: 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.   .  Something needs to be done to break the stalemate. --Oakshade 02:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  2000 census 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  L.A. County Maps 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  College and university gallery 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Population estimates 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I Like the Revised Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: What an excellent idea.  Please feel free to  create those articles--Loodog 23:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperate Pages for Crime and Environmental Issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Attractions article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  should all LA teams be mention in the Anaheim article. 

message: 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 . College Watch 23:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We post the latest Census estimates.  No other city article on wikipedia has a problem with this.--Loodog 06:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal to post only official U.S. Census Bureau population data not "estimates" 

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

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

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

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Everything has an Anglicization.  Use it.--Loodog 16:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recording 

message: This article is written very well and has great images (my favorite part), but before it can become a FA the  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)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Notable People 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hispanic majority? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal to move disambiguation page 

message: *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)
thread_title: Oppose

message: * 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 . Green Giant 23:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
thread_title:  Annexations. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: You are an editor, too.  Go ahead and add material with references to reliable, published sources. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Not Include Greater Los Angeles Population (CSA) 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Size of Mexican community 

message: 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)
thread_title:  TOO MANY images. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Landmarks 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Estimates again 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Requested move #5

message: :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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Life in Los Angeles 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have added fact tags to all sister cities not listed in source. Alanraywiki (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sister cities 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, it's correct as it is. --WorldWide Update (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA 

message: How do I edit incorrect information in this article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumble Jowls (talk • contribs) 18:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How to edit Los Angeles? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well, in the spirit of 'put your money where your mouth is', I just uploaded this:
(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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I like it, too -- lovely sunset colors. Nice work. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panorama image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Link to usgs forcast 

message: Why cant this image of Downtown be used
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Okay i agree, but i didnt change it (again). Mcanmoocanu 14:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 

message: I added this reference to the first paragraph, just beacause it is my home town. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And, someone deleted it without comment. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Big Orange 

message: Why was Los Angeles Built Where It is?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.100.231 (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  Why was Los Angeles built where it is? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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? Tomeasytalk 14:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 .  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)
replies: text: Unfortunately, there is a very good source to the disputed statement . 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. Tomeasytalk 17:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  224 languages in LA 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Los Angeles Diversity Rating 

message: 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. Tomeasytalk 07:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture in the infobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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? Tomeasytalk 19:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Spanish pronunciation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sister Cities 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Zip Codes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Population 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's possible, but probably impossible to prove.--Loodog (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: SF (San Francisco), NY (New York), DC (Washington), HK (Hong Kong). Not true. EmergentProperty (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviation 

message: 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.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City
http://en.wikipedia.org/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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: * 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)

text: Agree. Ucla90024 (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Does this new one meet your standards?  Taifarious1   09:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  S'ok ;) It's great photoshop practice!  Taifarious1   10:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can  Someone Please Create a Combination Banner Picture ?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I Think There Aren't Enough Pictures 

message: An IP editor has insisted on the following text in the Sports section:
: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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "the most supported teams not from Los Angeles." 

message: 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)
replies: text: Really, it's taken this long for this to come around again?! :) Mfield (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been discussed here several times and rejected repeatedly.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ok, when you put it THAT way, it's actually a good idea. I'm onboard. --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results so far 

message: Rddb (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What is an Alpha World City??