Talk:La Jolla/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

References to La Jolla.

These are counts from google. 

Results 1 - 10 of about 49,200 for "city of la jolla".
Results 1 - 10 of about 28,900 for "village of la jolla"
Results 1 - 10 of about 181,000 for "the village" "la jolla"
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,420 for "town of la jolla"
Results 1 - 10 of about 32,300 for "downtown la jolla"

--Serge 08:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Serge: Your search results add up to 112,820.

Results 1 - 50 of about 28,300,000 for "La Jolla"

112,820/28,300,000 = 0.4%

So the answer from Google is that La Jolla is extremely rarely referred to as the city, town, or village of La Jolla, or referenced as "downtown La Jolla". BlankVerse 08:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing worth keeping in mind about Google results -- if you actually look at the results for "city of la jolla", many of the pages are automatically generated. That is, sites which care little or nothing for accuracy, but are merely tried to increase Internet traffic to their site put out formulaic pages, often based on Census data, with little regard for what the status of the place actually is. older ≠ wiser 13:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Right, and bogus sites probably account for a larger percentage of the "La Jolla" hits than the "city of la jolla", "village of la jolla", or "downtown la jolla" hits.--Serge 15:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Neighborhoods?

Some of that listing looks like it is just what real estate agents may call different areas, and probably varies from realtor to realtor. Heck, I lived in the area and never heard anyone describe it as Upper and Lower Hermosa. Where the heck is Windansea, which is not only a famous beach break, but is also a small recognizable community with a retail establishments? BlankVerse 07:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The same neighborhood designations are used by all realtors in La Jolla. These are the ones used in the weekly open house listings in the La Jolla Light and La Jolla Village News. I cited two realtors who display maps with the same neighborhood designations and boundaries. Windnsea Beach is the name of the beach, not the neighborhood, which is called the Beach Barber Tract. Some locals do refer to the neighborhood near Windnsea Beach as Windnsea, but there's no official or formal designation of it as such, so far as I know. --Serge 08:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Nobody but real estate agents call it the Beach-Barber Tract. There is certainly no official or formal recognization of that name by the city of San Diego. And BTW, no locals calls Windansea Wind 'n Sea Beach. I don't know where you are getting your information, but ALL the locals call the residences and businesses in the Windnsea area by Windansea. That's from someone who used to live there. BlankVerse 01:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Due to the recent turmoil on community pages, a large community straw poll is being conducted. Wikipedia:Communities strawpoll is now open for voting. Despite resolutions made on this page, many others are facing turmoil similar to what this page is, or once did face. In an effor to solve the issue, I invite all Wikipedians to vote there by September 18th on this page following the procedures and ballot instuctions explained there. Thank You. Ericsaindon2 06:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Independent La Jolla/Secession

Will, I just reverted your change to say that ILJ wants to secede only a portion of La Jolla. If you look at the ILJ map, you will see all of La Jolla is included in the secesion proposal. This is because all residences within La Jolla use 92037. UCSD has its own zip code, but it's within La Jolla, and within the secession proposed area. Other La Jolla zip codes, like 92038, are for PO boxes, PO boxes that are in the La Jolla post office, which is also within La Jolla and the 92037 geographical area. --Serge 00:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that language used to describe the area on the ILJ website:

The approximately 13 square-mile area stretches from Del Mar North, East past Interstate 5 (this includes all of UCSD and a small portion east of I-5 that is currently already in the zip code 92037), and south to Turquoise Street, which would form the southern border between La Jolla and the Pacific Beach[1].

And compare it to the language used in the La Jolla article:

La Jolla borders Pacific Beach to the south and extends north to Torrey Pines State Reserve and Del Mar, California. Along the way it encompasses neighborhoods[1] like Bird Rock, Windansea, The Village of La Jolla (including "downtown La Jolla"), La Jolla Shores, La Jolla Farms, Torrey Pines, Mount Soledad and La Jolla Village (including La Jolla Village Square). Interstate 5 forms La Jolla's man-made border to the east, with the minor exception of some University of California, San Diego and commercial property east of I-5 and north of La Jolla Village Drive also considered by those who live and work there to be part of La Jolla.

It's the same area, we just describe it in greater detail. --Serge 00:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that La Jolla is co-terminous with 92037? -Will Beback 00:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
For all practical purposes, yes. The only significant exception might be the UCSD campus, which is surrounded by 92037 addresses, but itself uses 92093. But the campus is part of the area that ILJ proposes to secede. But the main point is that there is no area that is considered to be part of La Jolla that is not included in the ILJ plan, as far as I can tell from their maps and textual descriptions. --Serge 01:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
So La Jolla is co-terminous with 92037, and 92093 which lies within it. Is that correct? Where does that leave 92092? The USPS doesn't mark it as a P.O. box ZIP code. Also, in our own article we should avoid saying what people think unless we have some source for it. -Will Beback 01:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't know exactly where 92092 is. I doubt the ILJ people know either. Most people think all of LJ is 92037. I found out about 92092 doing research for this article. Anyway, do you think anything in our article says something about what people think without having a source for it? --Serge 06:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
...considered by those who live and work there to be part of La Jolla. How do we know that these folks consider a particular sliver of land to to part of the neighborhood? -Will Beback 21:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I'm taking the liberty of placing these comments at the top, as there's an awdul lot of discussion to wade through otherwise. Firstly, is there authority for the assertion that I-5 is the eastern boundary? Are Costa Verde, UTC, Renaissance, the hi-tech business park, the epsicopal church, ... not in LJ? Secondly, isn't there are rather good modern art gallery downtown which needs a mention? Richard Pinch 06:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And I'm taking the liberty of moving your comments to the bottom, which is where new stuff is normally added...
  • The mailing addresses of the areas you mention above are San Diego, not La Jolla.
  • The City neighborhood map lists that section as University City, not La Jolla (or Torrey Pines or La Jolla Village which are generally considered to be neighborhoods within the community of La Jolla).
  • The realtor maps don't consider those 'hoods east of I-5 to be La Jolla.
  • Here's a typical La Jolla map: [2]
  • There are city "Community of La Jolla" signs that designate the border described in the article.
  • Yes, the museum of modern art should be mentioned.
--Serge 07:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
If you add something about the art museum, should should definately cover the controversy over the name change. BlankVerse 08:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, at least it got noticed ... within half an hour too! So what is this controversy? Richard Pinch 19:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a general naming convention in Wikipedia that the article title is used to specify the most common name used to reference the subject of a given article (e.g., the article about Madonna is titled Madonna, not her full name). When names "collide" (same common name is used to reference more than one subject), then the convention is to "disambiguate" ("dab") with a parenthetic remark. For example, the word "shock" is used in mechanics and is the name of a movie (among other uses), so we have these disambiguated titles:

Also, this disambiguation method is known by the software. So if in an article about cars one refers to shocks like this: [[shock (mechanics)|]]s, then it will appear to the reader without the parenthetic remark, like this: shocks.

But, the main point is that disambiguation is normally not done unless there is a "collision".

Now, with cities and communites, a contrary convention has developed:

  • the title does not specify the most common name used to reference the city or community
  • names are disambiguated with commas instead of parenthetic remarks (the Wiki software does not recognize this form of disambiguation)
  • names are "predisambiguated"

It is because of that convention that the title of this article is La Jolla, San Diego, California, and not simply La Jolla, even though the most common name used to reference this community is, simply, La Jolla, and there are no "collisions" for that name. The controversy is about whether this special convention for cities and communities is a good thing for Wikipedia. --Serge 19:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions are about more than disambiguation, as you well know. We din't need to disambiguate "Spruce Goose". Nonetheless we follow the naming convnetion for military aricraft and call it the Hughes H-4 Hercules. Naming conventions help to keep consistent names of articles on a topic. -Will Beback 21:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
In any case, that's probably not the controversy that Blankverse meant:
  • In the early 1970s, the name changed to the La Jolla Museum of Contemporary Art, focusing the purview on the period from 1950 to the present. The Museum has long held a reputation for bold, prescient exhibitions and collecting practices and the oceanfront site became a mecca for artists and art aficionados from around California, the nation, and beyond. In 1990, acknowledging the larger geographic context and the population base of nearly 3 million in San Diego County, the name changed to the Museum of Contemporary Art San Diego, and in 1993, a branch facility opened downtown, further embracing the region. MCASD is fiscally sound, with a permanent endowment fund of over $40 million, and an annual operating budget of approximately $6 million. Annual support comes from a balanced mix of individuals, corporations, foundations, government agencies, and interest earned from the endowment
From Museum of Contemporary Art San Diego. -Will Beback 21:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes and References

I reverted (again) edits by anonymous user 216.103.8.71 (talk). The Reference tag and section at the end of the article is needed or footnotes scattered throughout the article will not do anything. Please do not remove the REFERENCE section and related tag

For more information on how the REFERENCE and REF tags work, see Wikipedia:FootnotesOrayzio 21:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Windansea Article Merge Help Needed

This is a call out to anyone familiar with "Windansea" to help with a merge request. There are 3 articles about Windansea (Windansea, Windansea Beach, and Windansea, California) and I have proposed that all three articles be merged into a single Windansea Beach article, with the remaining two articles changed into redirects. Unfortunately, I'm not really familiar with Windansea and I don't know if there is a Windansea neighborhood that is separate from Windansea Beach. Also, while the text of all 3 articles are mostly the same, there are enough differences that would require an expert on Windansea to figure out what is correct and what is not. Can anyone help? Orayzio 23:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Other Geographical Points of Interest

It is the home of the Mount Soledad Easter Cross, the center piece of a Korean War memorial, and a monument of some legal discrepancy.

Knowing nothing about La Jolla, I find this sentence confusing. Are the Mount Soledad Easter Cross, the center piece of a Korean War memorial, and a monument of "some legal discrepancy" (what does that mean?) all the same thing, two different things, or three? DeSales 04:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

...a monument of some legal discrepancy...? Anyway, I've re-written it in more conventional English. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

5700 block of Soledad Mountain Road between Desert View Drive and Palomino Circle

Per various newschannels & websites, there is a huge sinkhole, collapsing several lanes.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 18:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Famous Residents

Due to the size of this section compared to the rest of the article content, I split the section out into its own article per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Guideline. The change was reverted and the sub article PROD'd with no discussion. I don't think its at all unusual practice - see this category for a list of the other cities that have gone this route to avoid their article becoming overwhelmed with a list of names. Nearly 7k of this article was devoted to notable residents which is a disproportionate amount compared to factual information about the place itself. I have rationalized the PROD and taken the section back out for now. Thoughts one way or the other? Mfield (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

OK since it's been reverted again. Please explain why you think nearly 50% of the article should be devoted to notable residents. It makes it difficult to navigate the article as you have to scroll past this huge section of subsections to get to the templates and other factual information about the real subject of the article that are located lower down. The link provides an easy to find subpage which can grow with more information if necessary than would be acceptable in the main article. Once again this is recommended in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Guideline. Mfield (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
(e/c):I think you did the right thing is splitting out the article. A city like La Jolla will have a large number of notable people and so should have a separate article as recommended in WP:USCITY. Alanraywiki (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I work on a lot of articles about settlements, and this is an unusually long list, especially for the size of the neighborhood. In my experience, these lists are often the busiest parts of articles, and are also often the worst sourced. When the lists are split off they tend to be more stable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Will, La Jolla is not a neighborhood, it is a San Diego community that is comprised of neighborhoods itself. See the article for a list of them. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Will, what a wonderful coincidence to work with you again. Mfield had started a conversation with me about this on my talk page and also started a conversation here. In the interest of condensing this ForestFire down into one place, I'm pasting my response to Mfield below.
As I see it, there are three distinct issues:
First, the GFDL issue involved with doing a cut & paste move of content remains. By my reading, the license requires authorship information to be maintained with the content. If we are to have a separate article for the notable residents list, then it needs to have an accurate revision history. That's something an admin can do.
Second, there's the question of whether to spin it out into a separate article. I don't see it as necessary, but I do grant your point that it is allowed for under WP:SPINOUT. Since the content is being trimmed from the bottom of the article, I don't see an appreciable advantage to splitting it off into its own article, particularly because La Jolla derives notability from being the home of the "rich and famous," as it were. I'd ask that the content be kept in one article and a {{splitsection}} tag applied to generate discussion about your proposal. If a consensus to split is demonstrated, then the split can be made.
Third, there's the issue of removing names from the list. The essay you cite, WP:FAMRES, has not been adopted by community consensus and therefore does not serve to supplant basic policy. Additionally, even by the standard proposed in WP:FAMRES, people you removed would still qualify. All it asks is that they be notable enough for an article, not that they actually have an article. Are some of the people you removed non-notable? Potentially. Your edit summary asserts that all residents without articles of their own are ineligible, a contention unsupported by the essay you cite, or by policy. Each entry asserts notability; whether the asserted notability is sufficient is the question to answer, rather than applying a litmus test of whether the person is already the subject of an article.
To summarize, I feel that the spinout is an unnecessary complication for an article of this length. I feel that any spinout that is made must maintain edit history to ensure GFDL compliance and give due credit to contributors. Lastly, I feel that redlinks do not require removal of names from the list, since each name listed has an assertion of notability that must be individually considered. It's clear that your actions are undertaken with the best intentions. I don't agree that they're necessary, and I don't agree that there's a consensus to make them. Perhaps we could work toward consensus on each of these three issues. --SSBohio 19:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
There you have it. I weakly oppose the split, but strongly oppose breaking the GFDL edit history by doing this as a cut-and-paste move and strongly oppose removing notable people from the list solely because they lack articles about themselves. --SSBohio 22:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Per my replies on your talk page, I requote here too for simplicity...
  • The GDFL issue - yes, the split out could have been done differently, but WP:SPINOUT does not rule out cut and paste moves, simply stating that "split from" and "split to" edit summaries must be provided. I missed the original "split from" on the sub article but added a dummy edit soon after so it is in the edit history now, I don't think that is a huge issue. If the section is removed from this article again, the "split to" edit summary can go in this time round. Mfield (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Notability. This is a grey area, there are going to be cases when there are subjects who clearly would meet WP:N, but for whatever reason have no article yet. Then there are the drive by additions of peoples favorite pop star/sportsman/self that get added all the time to these lists. Where I have a real problem with these lists getting large is when they are largely populated with people who may have simply lived in the place, but have no real direct tie to the subject. So for example in La Jolla, there will be the Cargills and Scripps' of the world who have tangibly affected the community they lived in through strong business ties and/or philanthropy. And then there will be fringe notables who allegedly live or have been spotted here, very seldom with any proof to back it. The strong ones will likely be (as they should be) integrated into the History section anyway, so where does this leave the rest. Do they really constitute that much important factual information that they merit nearly 50% of an articles vertical space? Is this Hello magazine or an encyclopedia? This is why I tend to err on the side of if A> they don't have an article or B> they do but it fails to establish or even mention their ties to the community and there are no obvious references from googling, then why should they be included in a list with no other context. Who's to say they even live in the community? These drive by additions happen all the time as you will know if you follow a lot of community pages as I do. Moving the section out helps a lot with that as Will Beback notes above. Furthermore the sub article will have room to grow. Mfield (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Margaret Anne Cargill - oh and I created her article if anyone would like to add to it. Mfield (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be a consensus to split it out again then. I'll give it 24 hours and then do it. Mfield (talk) 05:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what problem this split would solve. The article is fairly short right now, and this section is at the end, effectively like an appendix. I think it's more useful as part of the article then it would be as a separate article. I don't know of any significant stability issues with it either. Again, I just don't see what problem this split would solve. So, I'm opposed. I also request that we get more discussion from more people before deciding anything. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess it just depends whether you think La Jolla is more than just a place that is known for the number of notable people that live there. I would argue that the place is not defined by the number of 'famous' people that call it home, and that 99% of poeple who are looking for factual informaiton about La Jolla really don't care which names live there. As a result a section that makes up such a large percentage of an article has undue weight, unless you believe or can argue that that defines La Jolla. I say write some more information into the article about those famous residents that have really contributed to the community, and put all the people who simply have lived there in their own article where it can be easily found if people really care about how many famous people they might see if they visit. Mfield (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
You argument makes sense, but when I look at the article, I see no problem. Sorry. If this section preceded any of the more important content, then I think there would be a reason to move it elsewhere. But as it is at the end of a fairly short article, I just don't see the point. I certainly don't think it gives the impression that the place is defined by the number of 'famous' people that call it home, but I should add that the relatively high number of rich and famous people there is an important distinctive characteristic of this community, that differentiates it from most other communities. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand that, I guess it depends on how you navigate articles, but a lot of useful linking to relevant articles and commons categories etc. is contained in the templates and external links sections at the bottom of the article, and it is seems to me that when you are reading through an article on a place, that information is of more relevance and interest than a long notable resident list. I still don't see why having the list in its own categorized article with a nice obvious link in the parent article that people can click if they are interested is such a big issue either? A fair number of other US cities have done exactly that for the same reasons quoted here. If it makes the information about the actual place easier to navigate then that should be a good thing IMO. Mfield (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
In my browser the entire article is a little over 6 "pages" long (measured in terms of "Page Down" key "pages"), while this section is about 1 3/4 "pages", or about 25% of the article length. It seems appropriate, for this community especially. While I see your point above about many of these people not being community contributors historically, the simple fact that so many of the rich and famous choose to live here, or were born here, is a significant distinctive characteristic of the community, an aspect that would not be as clearly conveyed if this section were moved. And having to scroll through another screen or two to get to the templates and external links section (which you could reach directly with one click in the table of contents) does not seem significant to me. I'll add, someone just skimming the article might learn the interesting and entertaining fact that Raquel Welch grew up in La Jolla. Or some other name on that list might catch their eye, something that they might miss entirely if this list was at a separate article that they might not even choose to peruse. So I see some potential upside for readers, both in terms of more accurately conveying the flavor of La Jolla and bringing attention to potentially interesting and useful information, and no downside, practically speaking, to leaving it here in this concise article. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Opinion summary

While these are gross simplifications of the views most have expressed above, I think this summary of views should clarify the state of opinion about the split:

At 3:2, a majority appears to favor a spinout, but demonstrates no clear consensus to split the article. Perhaps additional views could be neutrally solicited? --SSBohio 22:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree more opinions would be helpful, but remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy. If those in favor of the split would present a compelling case for it, I would favor it myself. I still don't understand what problem the split would solve. For example, if this article were too large and we were looking for ways to shorten it, I could see a compelling case for moving this section being a good candidate. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I have explained why I think it should be split a few times, and others have agreed, it is due to the length of the section compared to the rest of the article. Undue weight. In addition, having given it further thought, other towns and communities of this size and notability tend to have a lot more facts and history in their articles. It seems like the article is pretty long and comprehensive but it is actually quite low on information IMHO aside from lists. Splitting this list out would help concentrate the article on what is actually directly the subject of the encyclopedia article and that is the place itself, not a long list of neighborhoods and names. I have been involved in performing this exact same type of split in a few other articles and from my experience the move has always been beneficial rather than detrimental. Mfield (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
So, you think removing this section will somehow invite others to add more encyclopedic content to the article. I suppose there is only one way to find out if you're right... I'm fine with it. I suppose any positive change that happens after the split will be credited to the split. ;-) --Born2cycle (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
That's not what I was implying. Obviously I am not inexperienced enough around here to expect any miraculous improvements to anything overnight, I just think it might help to focus the article on its actual subject. Mfield (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The main reason some supported a split was the length of the list. Looking it over, I see that it's virtually unsourced. A simple solution, which doesn't require any discussion or consensus, is to delete the unsourced entries. That'll reduce the length problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
You could always improve (by adding refs) rather than destroy, Will. Or take a balanced approach: For every entry you erase, find a source for another entry. That'll allow you to delete while giving something back to the article at the same time. The air of "since you aren't doing it my way, I'll stop ignoring this other issue." It's curious that all I did was whip the section into some kind of shape from an amorphous pile of names and all of a sudden the section isn't good enough to remain here. Honestly, I should have just left well-enough alone. There are reasons to want the article split and there are reasons to keep the article together. Can we stick to discussing the question at hand rather than raise other issues about the content? After all, they'd be the same issues if the section were split off as if the section were kept. Further bifurcating the discussion doesn't advance us toward a consensus on this question. --SSBohio 23:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It's nothing that you did Ssbohio, all that happened was that when you cleaned up the section the article sprang to the top of my watchlist and as I had recently performed a few splitting outs of NR sections, doing this was in my mind and i was bold and went for it. The only thought on your edits is that the way it is sectioned now with all the larger headings makes the section significantly bulkier than a list with the same number of names appeared before, plus the subheadings makes the entire section take up multiple entries in the contents box. If the consensus ends up being to keep the section in, maybe we could amend the way it is subsectioned to avoid that extra bulk being incurred.
I totally agree that sources should be added - especially for non obvious entries - and missing articles on notables should preferably be created rather the names removed. Agreement with that premise is what led to me creating the Margaret Anne Cargill article.
I also think we should stick to the original question of in or out, the notability of certain names is applicable whether or not the section is in the article or is a subarticle. Mfield (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Exclusive?

I have removed the term exclusive from the intro (used in conjunction with the community itself and in reference to shopping etc.) Its a marketing term, there's nothing exclusive about La Jolla in the true sense - anyone can live in, go to or shop in La Jolla. It is also POV. No primary third party references use the term exclusive. Mfield (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. "Exclusive" is just a marketing term. There are no restrictions on who can live in the community.   Will Beback  talk  05:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The term "exclusive" in real estate typically means that people without a relatively high level of financial means are, practically speaking, generally restricted from living there. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Real estate people use all sorts of non-encyclopedic terms. Though I see that someone's now added material on how La Jolla used to be "restricted", that is it excluded Jewish people.   Will Beback  talk  04:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, at least some real estate titles from the earlier part of the 20th century restricted sales to only white Christians. That of course has no legal basis and relevance today. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not UCSD

Discussion moved to Talk:University of California, San Diego for topical relevance. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Advertisement/Travel Brochure-like Sections

I added the {{advert}} tag because several new sections have been added that read more like travel or Realtor brochures than an encyclopedic article. I tried to clean this up, but I'm thinking that some of this stuff just needs to be removed (see WP:NOT). I saw some article somewhere that included a link specifically to WikiTravel, but I don't know the syntax to add such a link.

I will say, though, that a lot of this new information is very nice for the article. I think it just needs to be presented in a more encyclopedic manner. - Orayzio 01:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Worked on it. Took a while! DavidOaks (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Who says the name relates to "ahoy"?

Under "origins" we find that "some say" the name La Jolla is a corruption of "ahoy". I could find no evidence to support this. A lot of other pages from a Google search say it, but always using the same "some say" format, basically copying the information from each other without any actual source. I personally have never heard of this derivation and I doubt if it has any scholarly or historical basis. "Some say" is classic weaseling, not encyclopedic. I tagged it as "citation needed" but I am tempted to just delete it. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

Well, that settles that! I see that borntocycle agreed with me that the claim has no merit - and went ahead and deleted it. ==MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)MelanieN
Yep, that was not only uncited, but ridiculous. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Time to reconsider the separate "list of people" article?

A year or so ago, some of you split out the "Notable residents" section into a separate article called List of people from La Jolla, San Diego, California. It was a good thought and a valiant effort at reducing clutter here. But looking at the situation now, it did not achieve its purpose IMO. The "Notable residents" section within this La Jolla article still exists and is actually quite a bit LONGER than the "list of people" article. The "notable residents" section totally duplicates what is in the "list of people," article, except that the section is more complete than the list. So what good is the list? It was created for "size and style considerations", but the style is duplicated in the article and the size is even greater in the article than in the list.

The "list" is tagged as an orphan (i.e. not much linked to) and page view statistics say it is looked at fewer than 10 times a day. I'm wondering if the "list" should be nominated for deletion, as redundant and just taking up space. What do the rest of you think, particularly the ones who were involved in the discussion about creating the list in the first place? Has it worked? Does it serve a purpose? --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

Many cities and towns have separate lists for their notable residents, and probably all of them are equally "orphaned" and receive fewer views than their parent articles. That's par for the course. The text in this article should be moved entirely to that article, leaving at most a short paragraph saying something like "La Jolla has been the home to many notable people, including Nobel Prize winners, actors, artists, and writers..." I don't think the article here is better for having a long list of people in it.   Will Beback  talk  16:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I did a little research, looking around for “list of notable residents” type articles. Here are some examples:

I noticed two things in this limited sample. First, all of the separate articles were lists of people from CITIES. I could find none that were lists of notable people from a neighborhood or community within a city, although there may be some and I just missed them. Second, whenever there was a separate “list” article, there was no enumeration of famous residents within the main article – just a link to the list. Sometimes the link was under “see also”, sometimes it was the only entry under the heading “Notable residents”, but there were no names in the main article.

To me this suggests, either eliminate the "list of people" article, or else eliminate the names from this article and replace them with a link. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

Here are all of the comparable lists: Category:Lists of people by U.S. cities. Other non-cities include:
But I don't think those set a good precedent. NYC boroughs are so large that they are comparable to cities. Perhaps the answer to that concern would be to merge it with the list of San Diegans as a separate section.   Will Beback  talk  17:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see a problem with leaving the list of people in this article. Reducing article size is the only reason to split out something like that, for it is obviously not a notable topic in and of itself. If this article ever gets close to becoming one of the longest articles in Wikipedia, then I would agree there is a point to splitting it out.

I changed List of people from La Jolla, San Diego, California to be a redirect to the notable residents section in this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a unilateral action while this is under discussion. I'm going to undo that until there's a consensus.   Will Beback  talk  19:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the point that the "list" article isn't notable, I don't think that any of the lists are notable in and of themselves. They are sub-articles intended to hold detailed information. In the case of this article, it comprises a large portion of the article, overwhelming the rest, which is why the previous discussion favored splitting it. Despuite that discussion, editors insisted on reinserting the material. As a final disposition, I suggest again that the material be mvoed to a section of List of San Diegans, as all residents of La Jolla are residents of San Diego.   Will Beback  talk  19:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Having both is redundant and confusing, but whatever. Yes, none of the list articles are notable in and of themselves, and are intended to hold detailed information. We agree on that. Thus creating the list for the sake of having the list in a separate article is not a reason to do it.

We also agree that in this article the list comprises a large portion of the article, but so what? The list is located at the end of the article, practically an appendix. From the TOC it's clear that there is no more article content after the list. In what sense is it overwhelming?

Furthermore, you're right, editors want the information here, perhaps because it seems silly to split it out since the article itself is not too big to hold it. It's the natural place to have it.

I should add that the list of notable residents within the article about the community implies something about the community. I mean, the reader arguably can get a feel for the community by skimming over the list of residents. That is, relative to everything notable there is to say about La Jolla, the list of notable residents is a significant part of it. By moving it into a separate article, it loses that, particularly given that readers are likely to not bother clicking on that link. So they are likely to see it if it is right here in the article, and thus get something out of it, but are likely to not get that if we move it into a separate article. Thus, we are serving the reader by leaving it here. How are we serving the reader by moving the list into a sub-article? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL - just went and reviewed the previous discussion from a year ago and found it ended with a post of mine that essentially said the same thing I just wrote here. No one ever responded to any of these points. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Those reasons seem the same as could be made for any of these lists. Yet the WP community seems to think they are worthwhile. There's obviously no reason to have them in both places.The list was moved to the separate article and then editors copied it back here without further discussion, which was unhelpful.   Will Beback  talk  21:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
It depends on the community. Some communities may be defined by their notable residents more than others. This article seems to give appropriate weight to the topic for this community. This situation seems to be comparable to Carmel-by-the-Sea#Famous_residents, which is also part of that article. While the community of Carmel happens to be incorporated as a city while La Jolla is a community of San Diego, culturally and socially they are similar. The city/community distinction is an irrelevant legal/political technicality, especially considering efforts to incorporate La Jolla might some day succeed. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The residents section in Carmel is significantly shorter and takes up a smaller proportion of that article. All communities are made up of residents, so I'm not sure how we could say that some communities are more defined by their residents than others. The possibility of a future secession should not affect our editing today, especially since there is no active secession proposal mentioned in the article.   Will Beback  talk  22:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Most if not all other articles about San Diego communities don't even have a notable residents section, and, if they do, they're not really comparable. See, for example, Clairemont, San Diego, California#Notable residents.

The issue of community definition is about whether there are a significant number notable residents from it.

I only mentioned the secession point in case someone was going to argue that the city/community distinction between Carmel and La Jolla is relevant with respect to whether the section should be in a sub-article or not. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're making about Clairemont, San Diego, California#Notable residents. If that article had as long a list then we should split it off too. You seem to be saying that having such a long list means that it is all the more important to keep it in the article, because it is an element of the place's notability. But the same argument is equally applicable to places like Malibu, California. I don't see how the city/neighborhood distinction means much here, except that there is already a list for the city of San Diego.
Why do I get the feeling you'll soon start a campaign to merge all lists of notable people back into their parent articles?[3] ;)   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Because logical people are logically predictable. Good idea. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
If you went on a campaign to remove unsourced entries from "residents" lists of settlement articles then I'd join you. But these lists are currently a mess. This article is above average in having 10% of the entries sources. We can do better, and we should.   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Notable residents

The "Notable residents" section of La Jolla, San Diego, California is unusually long. At one point, it was split to List of people from La Jolla, San Diego, California, but then the list was copied back to this article, leaving the list in two locations. There is also a List of San Diegans (La Jolla is a neighborhood of San Diego). This matter was discussed a year ago at Famous Residents and then raised again this week at Talk:La Jolla, San Diego, California#Time to reconsider the separate "list of people" article?Time to reconsider the separate "list of people" article? Three options include:

Views from uninvolved editors would be appreciated to help resolve this dispute.   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion between involved editors

A few points about the above:

  • I might be wrong, but I don't think the split ever happened. I poked around the history and couldn't find it. That is, the separate article was created (prematurely in my view), but I don't see where the section in this article was ever reduced to just a short summary. Consensus for the split was never established.
  • Another option is to reduce the size of this section so that it only lists the people, in two columns, without categories, descriptions or explanations, and the full list is maintained in the other article. The problem is keeping the two in synch.
  • I still don't understand why leaving it the way it is is a problem, or how moving it out of here helps readers (or editors for that matter).

--Born2cycle (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are the edits, most of which preceded the November 2008 discussion on this page:

  • 03:58, November 21, 2008 "move long notable residents section out into own article per plenty of other cities"
  • 05:21, November 22, 2008 "restore fr List of people from La Jolla, San Diego, California. Article too short to WP:SPINOUT, WP:FAMRES is not policy & doesn't require each to have an article"
  • 05:52, November 22, 2008 "Undid revision 253339038 by Ssbohio revert per talk - nearly 50% of the article is notable residents sub-sections, and the subarticle is easily found"
  • 06:10, November 22, 2008 "Undid revision 253342597 by Mfield (talk) More discussion please; revert to original configuration in mean time."
  • 21:30, November 22, 2008 "add {splitsection} tag"
  • 16:18, January 26, 2009 no summary ({splitsection} tag removed)

I don't know who deleted the tag in January. As for a consensus, there appear to have been 3 editors in favor and 2 opposed.   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

So the was removed from the article for a total of about 3 hours on one day? That's hardly noteworthy (except for how quickly the removal was reverted), or am I missing something?

And 3:2 is barely a majority (only by the slimmest of margins - one person), much less a consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, it was reasonably compact at one time.[4] Then an editor made a major revision (without consensus) that made it dramatically longer.[5] It's kept growing since. One reason for splitting out the lists of notable people is that they tend to be the most frequently edited and least sourced parts of settlement articles. In this case, only six entries have sources, out of a total of 60. If we cut the list down to the sourced entries then the problem goes away.   Will Beback  talk  00:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is "most frequently edited and least sourced" a reason for splitting it out? That seems like an argument to keep it under better watch... in the main article. But I agree it needs more references. Putting a fact tag next to each entry seems extreme, but maybe that's what we need to do. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
If the unsourced entries describe living people then it's permissible to remove them immediately. But to avoid disrupting the project why don't we set a deadline of something like a week to source the entries in the "residents" section and then delete any remaining unsourced ones. That's consistent with Wikipedia norms and policies.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Citing a city (or community) of residence is hardly describing a living person. How about a month like at Malibu? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
No rush. Let's wait until January.   Will Beback  talk  02:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Will, for going ahead and moving this! --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd almost forgotten.   Will Beback  talk  06:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Input from uninvolved editors

I favor this option: "Merge List of people from La Jolla, San Diego, California into a subsection of List of San Diegans and replace the "Notable residents" section of this article with a short summary and link." Better yet, a link without any summary, as is done here: Santa Monica, California. --MelanieN (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

RFC Comment: I recommend minimizing the list on this page. The List of people from La Jolla, San Diego, California (and/or the List of San Diegans) should have the main list. Also I see that not many of the residents have references, which should be addressed. These lists frequently end up being largely imprecise until WP:RS is enforced (e.g., people who are actually residents of neighboring communities, people called "residents" because they died there, etc.). —Mrwojo (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Binksternet. I haven't added or deleted "notable residents" in relation to this article and I haven't ever touched the list article, so I count myself uninvolved. I favor having no list at all in the place name article, instead putting a link to the list of residents down in "See also" or similar. Only residents who are so notable that interesting and important article text can be fashioned including them should be presented in the article. Binksternet (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree with MelanieN: Merge to a section of List of San Diegans. If in the future this gets impossibly long, then consider how to divide it. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I also agree that the list should be minimized on this page (preferably just a link) and maintained in a list article instead. Since the distinct article List of people from La Jolla, San Diego, California already exists, I'd say to put it there. If a merge of that article to List of San Diegans is desired, it can be discussed on the talk pages of those articles. But the bottom line is that the length of the full list is too much for this article. --RL0919 (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we have consensus? --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

the section called "Development"

Would anybody mind if I simply deleted the subsection titled "Development"? It basically says nothing, is completely unsourced, and amounts to community puffery (and the fact that it is mostly true does not change it from being puffery). If someone wants to keep this section, then please provide some citations. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ugh! Delete. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I concur with removal. Alanraywiki (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Done. --MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I see that protection was added to this article because of recent edit warring and vandalism. But was it FULLY protected, instead of semi-protected? I think full protection is unwarranted. All of the recent vandalism was done by ISPs, so semi-protection should be enough. Right now it looks as if even regular members like me can't edit it. I think that's excessive. --MelanieN (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You can request the protection be downgraded at WP:RFPP. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I started out by simply asking the editor who put in the protection, on their talk page, why they chose this option. They may have had a reason I don't know about. --MelanieN (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
That was odd. I didn't notice it until now. I wonder why? I asked for semi-protection because of the POV edits.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
There, it's fixed. The same editor has now changed it to semi-protection. Apparently that was what they intended all along. --MelanieN (talk) 05:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that was a mistake on my part. I clicked on the wrong part of the protection form. I apologize for the distress this caused. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"Wealthy"

The issue is over the first sentence... "La Jolla is a hilly seaside resort community...". Previously, it was "La Jolla is a wealthy seaside resort community...". Repeated attempts to bring back the adjective "wealthy" in lieu of "hilly" has not been successful. Please advise, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.186.133 (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it has always said "hilly". Various attempts to change it to "wealthy" have been repeatedly deleted, since "wealthy" is unsourced and non-neutral (it's "POV," in Wikipedia slang, meaning pushing a particular "point of view" - an opinion rather than encyclopedic factual material). If you can't provide a reliable-source reference to prove that La Jolla is properly referred to as a "wealthy" community, then don't put it in.
A word of warning: Don't let yourself get sucked into "repeated attempts" to change something. That's called an "edit war," and it is very much frowned upon. It can even get you banned from posting if you persist in it. If you find yourself in this kind of situation - where you keep changing something and someone keeps changing it back - then do what you did just now: bring it to the Discussion page to be resolved. --MelanieN (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we use one or some of the following, in order to add "wealthy" into the sentence? Also what are your thoughts on Rancho Santa Fe's page, specifically the opening paragraphs regarding this same issue.

http://www.housingwire.com/2008/09/09/la-jolla-tops-list-as-most-expensive-housing-market-in-nation

http://www.luxist.com/2009/09/25/la-jolla-is-the-most-expensive-real-estate-market/

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/hpci_data/index.html

http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/company-structures/10633606-1.html

http://www.accesssandiego.com/san-diego-coastal/la-jolla-real-estate/

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2009/06/15/beaches-and-freeways-how-coastal-values-have-fallen/?KEYWORDS=la+jolla

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-137020111.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=4jsn3_VEvBsC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=La+Jolla+wealthy&source=bl&ots=KVW_HXoGt6&sig=pH9SawHAYkbwU3UiAC52QPwmLaU&hl=en&ei=fC2JTNKIDoK8lQfLs8yVDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCUQ6AEwBDhQ#v=onepage&q=La%20Jolla%20wealthy&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.186.133 (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 24.59.186.133 (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved, but I'll say this: Just take care that, when using POV terms cited to a source, that the text you write attributes the POV term to the source in addition to just citing it. You don't want to make it appear that Wikipedia is taking a position on the point of view. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"Actually, it has always said 'hilly'".. Melanie, that's not true.

  • February 1, 2004 "an upscale, coastal community"
  • February 15, 2005 "highly upscale, coastal community"
  • April 21, 2005 "coastal community" ("highly upscale" removed by Yours Truly)
  • January 10, 2007 "seaside resort community"
  • April 8, 2008 "wealthy seaside resort community" (wealthy first added... still no hilly)
  • November 16, 2008 "a hilly neighborhood in ..." "is a wealthy seaside resort community" (hilly introduced first time)
  • November 17, 2008 "wealthy and hilly seaside resort" (combined "wealthy" and "hilly", by Yours Truly)
  • November 18, 2008 "is a wealthy and hilly seaside resort community" (combined into one lead sentence by Yours Truly)
  • February 15, 2009 "wealthy and exclusive seaside resort community" (hilly dropped for exclusive)
  • February 15, 2009 "a seaside resort community" ("wealthy and exclusive" dropped)
  • February 15, 2009 "a wealthy and exclusive seaside resort community" ("wealthy and exclusive" restored)
  • March 31, 2009 "wealthy [1] seaside resort community" (note citation)
  • December 7, 2009 "a wealthy[1] seaside resort community" (no change... still wealthy and not hilly)
  • May 11, 2010 "a wealthy[1] seaside resort community" (no change... still wealthy and not hilly)
  • June 12, 2010 "a wealthy[2] and hilly seaside resort community" ("hilly" reintroduced first time since dropped on Feburary 15, 2009)
  • August 26, 2010 "a hilly seaside resort community" ("wealthy" dropped first time since added in 2008)

The idea of describing it as wealthy goes back to 2005 if you accept "upscale" as a synonym for "wealthy", which I suggest is reasonable. In comparison, "hilly", which had a short 4-month stint in 08-09, and then dropped for 15 months until June of this year, is much newer.

Anyway, even as the editor who originally took out the "upscale" reference, I think the sources support the description. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the history. I personally never had a problem with describing it as "wealthy" or "upscale," but since it has become controversial I agree it needs a citation. I don't think ANY of the citations suggested by User:24.59.186.133 qualify as "Reliable Sources" but I will try to find one. And I agree with Amatulic that is isn't enough to provide a list of house prices or something - the source has to actually SAY that La Jolla is a wealthy community. It shouldn't be hard to find such a source, because (let's face it) we all know it is. I'll see what I can do. --MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggest comparing this article with those of other "wealthy communities", such as Brookville, New York, Belvedere, California, and Palm Beach, Florida. See Highest-income places in the United States.   Will Beback  talk  00:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I found some solid, Reliable Source references for "upscale," and added them to the opening sentence. Everybody happy now? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and just a comment about "exclusive" which I see was in the article earlier: that's a term that should NEVER be used as a synonym for wealthy or upscale in my opinion. Even without knowing any history it makes you wonder, just who is being excluded? And if you DO know a little history you know that the term (when applied to a neighborhood) refers to the exclusion clauses that used to be in some deeds, preventing the sale of the property to "undesirables" such as non-whites or Jews. In a 21st century context the term and the concept really grate, and I look forward to the day when "exclusive" disappears from our vocabulary as meaning a desirable or wealthy neighborhood. OK, I'm off my soapbox now. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
As a compromise, can we just use the term "affluent", as noted in the following, and call it even? The Belvedere (in particular), Woodside, Rancho Santa Fe, and Coto de Caza pages were good examples to base the La Jolla page. Consequently, would it be appropriate to add back the "neighborhoods" section or a new section specifically addressing La Jolla's average median home sale price (or ranking within "highest income communities"). I note that in the above section "highest income places in the United States" and the Rancho Santa Fe page, they all specifically address these points. Thoughts?

http://www.sandiegocoastlife.com/communities/san-diego-coast/communities-la-jolla.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.186.133 (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as "affluent" and that source: Nope. "San Diego Coast Life" is just a travel-guide website - it is not a WP:reliable source. "Affluent" would be a fine word to describe La Jolla, but only if it is properly sourced. A section on home sale prices and such would be fine, down in the article somewhere. --MelanieN (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Anything that says "Wealthy" or "Affluent" is not a WP:NPOV. Even with a source, information that can be looked at subjectively, is POV. As it stands now, the article seems to say that only the wealthy or affluent live in La Jolla, which is just not true. Yet is is objective to say that La Jolla is hilly, because it can be gauged as being so.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no question that La Jolla is "upscale"; that doesn't imply that only rich people live there (as for example "exclusive" would). In any case, there are so many sources saying "upscale", including Reliable Sources like news articles, that the word meets Wikipedia's criteria as sourced. If we found similar Reliable Sources saying "affluent", that would be OK as well. (So far none of the sources proposed for "affluent" qualify as Reliable Sources.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
So how is it that the Belvedere, CA page gets "Belvedere is an affluent town in Marin County, California, United States", yet with no sources cited. On Coto de Caza, CA's page, it says "...is one of Orange County's oldest and most expensive master planned communities" with no sources cited. Likewise, in neighboring Rancho Santa Fe, CA, the RSF page says "at $245,631, it is one of the highest income communities in the United States with at least 1,000 households " with no sources attached. As a community, we need to address the discrepencies between the La Jolla page and other comparable areas (and their respective pages). Even San Carlos, CA opening paragraph says "...it is an affluent small residential suburb located between Belmont to the north and Redwood City to the south" with no sources attributed at all. Likewise, Montecito CA: "Montecito is among the wealthiest communities in the United States" with no sources. So how do these pages define "affluence" or "wealth" without sources cited? We need to make this right. We need to make this fair. 24.59.186.133 (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no shortage of lack of citations in WP articles. It's a never-ending process to make it better. Are you part of that? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I plan to go through each of those pages above and delete their references to "wealthy" or "affluent" entirely. In the meantime, I am going to identify qualified sources that will allow us to define La Jolla as an "affluent" seaside resort community. In addition, I am starting to draft a new section or introductory paragraph that mentions La Jolla as the most-expensive real estate market in the nation... as we have already identified qualified sources for. We will make this right, we will make this fair. 24.59.186.133 (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Please don't put that into the introductory paragraph of this article. I think it belongs in this article, assuming proper sourcing - but it should be down in the body of the article, not in the intro. And I would like to see any source that defines La Jolla as THE most expensive real estate market in the nation; I doubt that. Thanks. By the way, why is it so important to you to use the word "affluent" instead of "upscale"? Aren't they pretty much the same? --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
My mistake, here it is [6] - and in Business Week which is clearly a Reliable Source. "La Jolla, Calif., the San Diego community perched above the Pacific Ocean, now has America's highest-priced homes, according to Coldwell Banker's 2008 Home Price Comparison Index released on Sept. 9." That's comparing using a standard 4 bedroom house; I think there must be other places that have far more expensive ACTUAL home sale prices, based on indexes which include huge mansions; but still, on this standardized measure La Jolla wins. I'll add it to the article myself when I have time. --MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
If our sources discuss home prices then perhaps that's what we should refer to, rather than vague terms like "affluent" or "wealthy". There are currently sections on the economics and the demographics. Unusually high home prices could fit nicely next to one of those.   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
We can do both - discuss the home prices and describe the community as "upscale" - because both are supported by Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
If you wanted to see source that defines La Jolla as "the" most expensive real estate market in the nation, you shouldn't doubt that because I already listed above several links supporting that (http://www.housingwire.com/2008/09/09/la-jolla-tops-list-as-most-expensive-housing-market-in-nation). That study was done by Coldwell Banker (which I believe is quite reputable itself) which clearly states that. In addition, there were two other sources (including CNN Money) which back that statement up. And yes, you were correct to include the BusinessWeek article, although it is not as direct in saying that as the other sources were. 24.59.186.133 (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I added the home prices information - in a new Demographics section. --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Allied Gardens, San Diego, California which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 23:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Move request notice

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved per discussion. - GTBacchus(talk) 23:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


Maybe not hold The above discussion is on hold while the overall naming convention for U.S. neighborhoods is debated at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). However, during the original discussion at Talk:Allied Gardens, San Diego, California, a consensus seemed to be developing to rename this one article to La Jolla regardless of the outcome of the overall discussion of San Diego neighborhood names. The feeling was that "La Jolla" is well enough known nationally not to need disambiguation by the addition of "San Diego, California". In so listing it would be comparable to other extremely well-known neighborhoods like Haight-Ashbury (listed without "San Francisco") or Hollywood (listed without "Los Angeles"). Even if the overall consensus is to retain the format Neighborhoodname, City, exceptions are made for very well known neighborhoods, and so it seems like that this article would get renamed regardless of how the overall discussion is concluded. Would it be possible to proceed with this one move even while the overall discussion continues? --MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

To give an opposing view, I'll say first that this is the English Wikipedia, not the United States Wikipedia. This encyclopedia is an international project with a world-wide audience, much broader than just the United States. Being well known nationally doesn't seem like a good criterion for renaming. Of the other examples mentioned, Haight-Ashbury may well get renamed to Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco, California. Hollywood will likely not get renamed because the quantity and global reach of products continuously emanating from Hollywood cause Hollywood to be known world-wide — a distinction not enjoyed by La Jolla. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm the nominator of the proposed move in question. The rationale for moving all forty San Diego neighborhoods, including La Jolla, to their "plain name", is explained in detail there, and has nothing to do with any of them being "well-known". Being "well-known" is never a criteria in naming articles in Wikipedia, except relative to other uses of the same name when there are conflicts. The forty selected for this proposal were chosen specifically because there are no conflicts for their names in Wikipedia. Naming policy specifically dictates making titles only as precise as necessary to avoid conflicts.

The point is this. If "La Jolla" was not a name of a San Diego community, but a name of a book, a film, a TV episode name, or any place outside of the U.S., then the title of the article would be La Jolla. So just because it happens to be the name of a San Diego neighborhood the title needs to be the name plus some other information about the topic? Why? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

So, Born2cycle, are you supporting or opposing my suggestion that we move this one page to La Jolla immediately, even while the broader discussion is ongoing? --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I would support it if there was an official request filed at WP:RM specific to this article. Without that, I'm not sure how you determine there is consensus in support of the move in a way that won't get challenged in the future.(NOTE: Since this is being discussed here at mentioned at the larger discussion, that should be good enough --Born2cycle (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)).

In the mean time, I don't understand why anyone would support this move without supporting the other 39 moves unless they believe being "known nationwide" is somehow a criteria that is relevant here (for which I know of no precedent or basis). --Born2cycle (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support. I searched on Google for possible ambiguities around the world, especially in Spanish-speaking areas, and found a number of hotels, condos, apartments and restaurants with La Jolla as part or all of their name, but I did not find a residential area or any notable contender. I think La Jolla by itself is the right name for this article. Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support This name seems to be an irritant.   Will Beback  talk  22:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support La Jolla, San Diego, California → La Jolla. If the larger general proposal is approved, this is moot, as this move will be part of that. If it's not, specific support here should trump general opposition there. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

I trust this will not be used as a precedent for any other article titles.   Will Beback  talk  02:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this discussion overrides the larger discussion at Talk:Allied Gardens, San Diego, but I will accept it so long as it is not used as a precedent.   Will Beback  talk  02:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

economic engine

This sentence in the intro is misleading: "The economic engines of La Jolla are tourism, dining, and shopping.[4][10][11]"

It is supported by three citations, but each reference obviously caters to tourists, and so understandably focus only the tourism, dining and shopping aspects. Downtown La Jolla also has a myriad of different types of businesses that are unrelated to tourism. We need a reference for that, but I wanted to bring attention to the problem. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You could describe the other businesses as "local-serving retail" as has been done in other neighborhoods. Are there other types of business that should be included? Are things like the golf course and the private schools "economic engines"? --MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking local retail, but that too. I was thinking medical (both practice and research), bio-engineering, financial, legal and software... off the top of my head. I'm sure those all together contribute much more to the GDP than tourism related stuff. But we need citations for that. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm... that's certainly true if we include UCSD (as the definition here does) and the mesa area surrounding UCSD. The university itself is probably the biggest economic engine of all for that larger area. It depends how we define the area covered by this article; I was thinking more in line with the the city's designation: "The City of San Diego defines the community's eastern boundary as Gilman Drive, former Highway US 101, with the exception of some of the University of California, San Diego (UCSD)[13] and the northern boundary as La Jolla Village Drive.[14]" But the article itself defines La Jolla as extending all the way to Del Mar, which is probably the more common understanding. That would include those mesa areas such as Scripps and Torrey Pines - where as you say medical care, research, biotech, etc. are dominant. So you are right, that kind of thing should be added. The current "economic engine" sentence seems to be referring only to La Jolla Village.
By defining itself as reaching all the way to Del Mar, it appears that this article has reached out to include the city-designated neighborhood of Torrey Pines, San Diego - in addition to the non-city-jurisdiction areas that include UCSD, Scripps, the VA, etc. which are commonly understood as part of La Jolla. Do you think that is justified, or should it say the northern boundary is the Torrey Pines neighborhood, or should it define Torrey Pines as a kind of part of Greater La Jolla? This should probably be clarified somehow in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking about UCSD at all, though wouldn't necessarily exclude the companies and research facilities up there by the golf course (regardless of whether the city includes that as part of the "La Jolla" or "University" neighborhoods, these entities certainly consider themselves part of La Jolla, and so does UCSD). Anyway, I was primarily thinking about "downtown" La Jolla, which has a lot of all of that too, including, for example, The La Jolla Bioengineering Institute down on Coast Blvd and Net Sapiens, a VoIP system developer/provider, on Kline. In other words, all the traffic going into downtown La Jolla in the morning and leaving at 5pm every weekday is not primarily comprised of retail sales clerks, waiters and hotel maids. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, go for it! You might find some objective information in the La Jolla Community Plan which is here. Meanwhile I'll give some thought to how to clarify the questions about the borders or extent of the community. --MelanieN (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


Timeline

The format of the timeline is inconsistent. Sometimes there are complete sentences, sometimes not. Sometimes the facts begin with capitals, sometimes not (i.e. "The Bishop's School). Does anyone know the Wikipedia standard for creating such a timeline? If so, I would be willing to edit, if not, I think the timeline should be deleted. Some of it is interesting, but some of it isn't really that unique information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdbulldog (talk • contribs) 03:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep timeline. I agree it should be consistent in style. I don't think there are standards regarding this, but that's no reason for this article to not have one. I like it - because it gives the reader an at-a-glance historical overview. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Important Tips Before Editing This Article

webcomic xkcd 285

Please review the following to get a better idea of what you should add to this article:

  1. Please follow the Wikipedia USCITY guideline for layout and content.
  2. Please ensure a person meets Wikipedia Notability requirements before adding to the "Notable People" section.

Please review the following before editing:

  1. Please document your source by citing a reference to prove your text is verifiable.
  2. Please add text that has a neutral point of view instead of sounding like an advertisement.
  3. Please read the "Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles" chapter from the book Wikipedia : The Missing Manual, ISBN 9780596515164.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

La Jolla is not a city per se, but a community within a city (San Diego), so not everything on Wikipedia USCITY can/should be applied. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, La Jolla is not a city. Why is this here? --Born2cycle (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be silly to call the guideline "US CITY / TOWN / VILLAGE / CDP / UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY / AND NUMEROUS OTHER NAMES FOR A CITY Guideline"? I think the point of the guideline is that if something looks like a city or community, then the guideline should be used as a basis of how all related articles should look. Depending on the type of city, some articles do need other types of section added, and the guideline isn't hard-in-stone, but section names in all of these types of articles should follow a common order, like "History" first. Please state why you think a specific "city" should not follow this guideline. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Please state why you think someone else thinks the guideline should not be followed. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Although there are good elements listed on WP:USCITY, it is just a guideline, and not everything listed can and should be followed. And it even states at the top "there are no requirements to follow it in editing". If you want to follow the recommended sections names and order, that is fine, but it also says that "sections may be moved around to a different order". Furthermore, the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure was specifically written to address articles on settlements like La Jolla, that are not cities per se. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. In Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure, it says "This guideline is a supplement to specific guidelines on writing about U.K. cities and towns, U.S. cities, Canadian cities and Indian cities. This guideline does not replace those, but amalgamates the information in order to serve as advice for writing about settlements not in those geographic regions.", which appears to target countries othan than UK, US, Canada, India. Since "La Jolla" is still located in US, then WP:USCITY guideline should be the primary guideline for it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  2. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure, only has 10 edits, hasn't been touched in over 1 year, and lacks content (compared to WP:USCITY). • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  3. The first edit comment in the history for Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure, it says that it is based on WP:USCITY.
  4. In Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure, I'm not sure if the "Notable residents" section is a mistake, since the WP:USCITY article uses the section name "Notable people". Many people have been renaming sections to "Notable people" for well over a year. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

La Jolla is not a city; it is a community within the city of San Diego. The USCITY guideline gives important advice but because La Jolla is not a city, the whole guideline is not applicable. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ map of La Jolla neighborhoods
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:La_Jolla/Archive_2&oldid=1080943183"