Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Los Angeles area task force

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject California/Los Angeles area task force page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1

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)[reply]

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. Taifar ious1 04:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fair enough Taifar ious1 09:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have created a discussion forum and this is the first topic, to discuss your thoughts about this, go here. Taifar ious1 21:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Where did you find the criteria? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here...

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)[reply]

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. Taifar ious1 05:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm not new to Wikipedia either, but I don't know the answer. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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♣ (^verbalize_generosity) 09:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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♣ (^verbalize_generosity) 11:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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♣ (^verbalize_generosity) 12:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When i get back from my holiday I would be happy to help you with the expansion. Cheers Taifar ious1 05:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

FYI: There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California... -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think thats a great idea and i'll try to get behind it. Cheers Taifar ious1 09:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New photo request category

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

California Chapter

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

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)[reply]

Done Taifar ious1 07:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

Good for you, Minnaert! Cheeringly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]