Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Los Angeles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Taifarious1
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Articles not related to Los Angeles

I noticed several articles that have nothing to do with Los Angeles, especially those related to Orange County cities or communities. Other than being in Southern California, there is no other relationship to Los Angeles, either the city or the county. As such, I have removed the WBLA template from them. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I Disagree with that, this is also about Los Angeles County, sure the Orange County ones are fair, but other communities still belong under the WP:WLA scope. Taifarious1 04:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The ones I removed, (Newport Beach, Ontario Mills and Knott's Berry Farm), are not in LA County... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough Taifarious1 09:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
There were a few others as well, all outside of LA County and having no other relationship to Los Angeles that I could discern. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I have created a discussion forum and this is the first topic, to discuss your thoughts about this, go here. Taifarious1 21:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Per the consensus of the discussion there, the discussion should continue here instead. I think it should be here, too. And, Manzanar, in Inyo County, should not be claimed by this wikiproject! It is just too crazy, and it looks bad to be claiming that as a Featured Article of this project. I'm sure that some Japanese-Americans from Los Angeles were placed there, but not necessarily any more than from San Francisco or elsewhere. More Los Angeles Japanese-Americans who were put into concentration camps were put in other ones, because there were many of them. doncram (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I did not know that the Manzanar property was owned by the City of Los Angeles back in 1942, when the war relocation camp was opened there, hundreds of miles away from L.A. And, that the site was eventually designated a L.A. Historic-Cultural Monument. So there is more connection than i knew about. I just edited the Manzanar article to reflect the LA Historic-Cultural Monument, as well as to add other info to its infobox. It is no longer owned by the City of L.A. though, it is owned and operated as a National Historic Site by the Federal government, and L.A. has more connections to, say, New York City, than it does to Manzanar. So i still think it is odd to claim this as an L.A. article, although it is less odd than i previously thought. But can we include New York City in the wikiproject, too?  :) doncram (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Importance rating criteria?

What are the criteria for the importance ratings? What makes an article a "Top" importance article? A "high" importance article, etc.? After looking at how articles in this WikiProject have been rated, I'm really scratching my head. For example the Hollywood sign got a top importance rating while the Los Angeles Aqueduct got a low importance rating? (I've corrected those as I saw fit; you may wish to change that, based on whatever the criteria is). But as of now, a lot of the articles appear to have incorrect importance ratings, IMHO. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I just saw the importance rating criteria for this WikiProject. Who came up with the criteria? Was there ever a chance for members of this WikiProject to have input into the process for deciding on the criteria? I'm not trying to cause trouble, but I do think we need to revise the criteria. For example (and this is just one), the Hollywood sign is quite famous, both here in LA and outside of LA...it is very well-known. But should that mean it should get a "top" importance rating? I'm not so sure. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 13:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Where did you find the criteria? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Here...
Main article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Los Angeles/Assessment
I don't think the criteria was ever put up for consensus...someone just came up with it arbitrarily (no offense intended to anyone). And if you look at the articles, especially those considered to be of "Top" importance, IMHO, many should not be considered as such. IMHO, the criteria for each importance level needs to be discussed and consensus reached for each level. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thats ok if you feel about changing innapropriate article ratings, this isint a dictatorship, but I disagree about the Hollywood Sign article, I believe it is an extremely important fixture of LA and its the thing that most people associate with the city. Taifarious1 05:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it's an important symbol that is widely-recognized. But that, in and of itself, does not qualify it as a "top" importance article, IMHO. It'a symbol. It has limited cultural impact. But that's it. There are many aspects of the Los Angeles area that are far more important. One example would be the Los Angeles Aqueduct, which was originally rated "Low." That makes absolutely no sense to me. And there are many other examples, I'm sure. I believe we need to set some criteria for the importance ratings. How about proposing what you think the criteria should be to get us started on the discussion? -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll bite. I'm not exactly new to WikiP; I have done a fair share of editing and commenting, but I just don't understand why we need ratings of "importance." Can someone explain? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not new to Wikipedia either, but I don't know the answer. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] West Los Angeles and the Westside

I am attempting to fix up all the articles relating to the Westside when I find the time. I would like some assistance. Many of the articles look like Original Research to me; just about all need Sources. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We could move it to Los Angeles/West. Agtax 10:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the discussion is going on at Talk:Western_Los_Angeles#Requested_move. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel

The article for our historic hotel in Hollywood is very weak. It needs a lot more info and sourcing. Secondly, the article is "Hotel Roosevelt". Why Hotel Roosevelt? Check the talk page. ♣DeathRattle101 AKA LUX♣ (verbalizegenerosity) 09:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I took care of the move: Roosevelt Hotel is now a disambiguation page (as is Hotel Roosevelt); the articles are now located at Roosevelt Hotel (Hollywood) and Roosevelt Hotel (New York) and I've fixed all of the links in the related articles to prevent them from linking to the dab page. That should do it. Kafziel Talk 09:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, Thank you. Now maybe people will be able to find it when they're looking for it lol. I know I had a hard time finding it. ♣DeathRattle101 AKA LUX♣ (verbalizegenerosity) 11:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, does anyone care to help me expand this article? Its very short, messy, and lacking references. There's a ton of information on this historic hotel. I want to expand it. ♣DeathRattle101 AKA LUX♣ (verbalizegenerosity) 12:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

When i get back from my holiday I would be happy to help you with the expansion. Cheers Taifarious1 05:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
What's strange about the hotel is that on one side the neon sign on top is "Roosevelt Hotel", but on the other side it is "Hotel Roosevelt". Even the building doesn't agree with itself. Minnaert (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That's true enough. Why not put that into the article? The image is right there for proof. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regions are not "zoned to" schools — or vice versa

I notice in many L.A. articles the phrase that such-and-such an area is "zoned to" a particular school. This is certainly not normal usage. I suggest we simply say that "Palms is within the Hamilton High School service area; other public schools are Palms Middle, Charnock Road Elementary, Clover Avenue Elementary, Palms Elementary and Pacifica Charter" (or whatever). It is not necessary to say it is part of LAUSD because if it is L.A. city, it is definitely part of LAUSD. In short, we must eliminate this misuse of the verb zone. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's not always the case. For example, Betsy Ross Elementary School, which is in Los Angeles, served Culver City students, not the Los Angeles residents in the surrounding area. Culver City closed the school as the demographics of the area changed, but to say that if a school is in the City of Los Angeles then it is served by LAUSD does have a few exceptions. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Today I have laryngitis, but tomorrow I might be able to phone the LAUSD and get the answer. There is no way to e-mail them directly (too much spam, I guess). Anyway, Betsy Ross School was at 12201 Washington Place, which is inside Culver City although it is served by the L.A. post office (Mar Vista). City boundaries and postal areas often do not coincide. Betsy Ross is now a private school, Wildwood. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that Betsy Ross is now a private school. But for a long time, that area was still in the City of Los Angeles. If I recall, it was annexed by Culver City sometime later, before CCUSD closed the school. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That strip was annexed to Culver City in 1925. Before then it was unincorporated county area, not part of L.A. city. The annexation-consolidation-detachment map for L.A. is at http://navigatela.lacity.org/common/mapgallery/pdf/annex34x44.pdf. Anyway, this side discussion (thought it is valuable and interesting) doesn't affect my main thesis about "zone to" as acceptable nomenclature for school attendance areas. I am still wondering how it happened to get so popular in articles about L.A. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is "Los Angeles?"

How are we defining Los Angeles in this project? The city or the county? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Based on the articles already tagged by this WikiProject, it's defined by being in LA County and/or having a major, direct connection to the Los Angeles area. For awhile, there were a number of articles dealing with place in Orange County and San Bernadino County that were tagged for this WikiProject. I think I caught all of those... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Wait... so now we're not including any of the outlying counties? I'm out. Kafziel Ask me for rollback 07:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Why should they be included in a WikiProject dedicated to Los Angeles? No offense intended, but I don't see how that makes any sense. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI: There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, OC and LA are pretty obviously intertwined in a lot of ways but I don't really have an opinion about the scope of this wikiproject. I was just saying I'm out, because when I joined it was under the impression that I'd be in a position to help. I'm rarely in LA, though, so there's not much point in me being here. Not that I wouldn't be willing to contribute, of course, if someone needs something in particular. Kafziel Ask me for rollback 08:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Then we are talking about Los Angeles County? That covers a lot of ground, and perhaps the title of the project should be changed to Los Angeles County to reflect reality. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to get that specific, as long as the criteria is outlined in the project page somewhere. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the place to outline it, and I propose that it be defined as "The city of Los Angeles and those areas that would become the city" like Hollywood, most of San Fernando Valley, Palms, etc., but leaving out Beverly Hills, Santa Monica and other separate municipalities. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it should be defined as being inside Los Angeles County and any article that has as major, direct link to Los Angeles (for example, Owens Valley, Manzanar, Owens River). -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Then it should be WikiProject Los Angeles County, which I would support. Sincerey, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be so specific in terms of the name. "Los Angeles" doesn't imply ONLY the City of Los Angeles. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can continue to edit L.A. articles without being in this group, but having it mis-named really offends me. Yours very sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

LA is a state of mind. Sprawl being in the essence of its character, geographic boundaries and political jurisdictions may be less relevant to its cultural identity than is the case for other loci. Not meaning to be flip about it, I really think that as an encyclopedic category Los Angeles ought to be treated fairly broadly. 67.130.129.135 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Defining the neighborhood boundaries in Venice

The Venice article needs a little more detail on the neighborhoods. For those who are familiar with western Los Angeles, can you define the true boundaries of Oakwood and Milwood? Also, is there a decline of gang violence over there yet? Agtax 21:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Los Angeles Wiki Project

Trying to start a Wiki about Los Angeles and thought Wikipedians might be able to help. http://www.thelawiki.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.78.87 (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think thats a great idea and i'll try to get behind it. Cheers Taifarious1 09:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New photo request category

Please see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Los Angeles County, California. GregManninLB (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] California Chapter

I am looking into starting Wikimedia California. Anyone interested? Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main page nomination for Manzanar

With the 39th Annual Manzanar Pilgrimage coming up on April 26, I have nominated Manzanar to be on Wikipedia's main page on that date. Please add your support for that at Today's featured article requests. Thank you! -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Taifarious1 07:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LACMA Article

I found the LACMA article to be heavy on criticism and very light on discussion of the holdings of the museum and signifcant works of art that one would be able to see on a visit. As a piece of media that one might use to consider planning a museum visit, it is not very informative. For example, articles on other museums, (Nelson-Atkins, the Met, Cleveland Art Mueum, etc.) discuss masterpiece highlights and offer images of some of the artwork.

204.89.11.29 (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Robert Avila, 04/14/2008.

i've authored a fair amount of the LACMA article. The museum has had a fair amount of controversy over the last few years, I guess that is what I have ended up adding. I was planning to work on it to add information about the new BCAM buildings, now that it is opened. It can be tricky to add images of the artwork, since often there are copyright issues with the images. I will take a look at reworking the article to include masterpiece highlights & discuss the collection more. Minnaert (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Good for you, Minnaert! Cheeringly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Registered Historic Places in the City of Angels

Check out this new list-article. The name of the article may change. A description column will be added after May 20, when its candidacy for a DYK mention expires. But, can you add any pictures? Happily, it has more than 50 pics already for more than 1/4 of the 186 places in the City of LA that are listed on the U.S. National Register. doncram (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

i think this is a very good article and will add it to the main page under expansion tasks and requested photo. well done. Taifarious1 06:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! The article, now named List of Registered Historic Places in Los Angeles, was a DYK on May 20 with the oh-so-clever (not really) hook, did you know that "... that the City of Los Angeles has 186 sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places?". Cbl62 has kept adding photos, and we have, amazingly over 140 of the 186 sites illustrated by photos now. Also we are starting to add short descriptions, at least for sites that have corresponding articles already. Cheers, doncram (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the Talk page for this wikiproject?

This talk page starts off "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Los Angeles page." I am confused. Is this like a portal talk page, that is only supposed to talk about the Portal page? If so, where is the Talk page for the wikiproject, where members can talk about their articles-in-process, goals for the project, etc.? doncram (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good, Gmatsuda dropped the talk page header that was giving that message. I guess this is the general Talk page after all. Also, I am dropping the "to do" list header on this page that was linking to a world-wide wikipedia to-do list and allowing for a duplicative custom To Do list for this project, separate from the To Do list on the Project page. doncram (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)