Talk:Los Angeles County, California

This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Southern California. For guidelines see WikiProject Southern California and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

Is the word Tech Coast actually used colloquially?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.46.65‎ (talk)

Category:Cities in Los Angeles County

Anyway to include a link to this more comprehensive list without actually adding the article page to the category page?

Citation

I thought we had the discussion on places in the United States that we would include the state's name. I'd hate to see people start redirecting to non-disambiguated pages when there may BE a county with the same name in more than one state and they don't know about it. -- Zoe

We did, so I moved it. Most links were to LA County, California anyway. dml

The last time I read the discussion, the most-well-known-name clause did not exclude places in the United States, even if there were another much more obscure county of the same name in another state. --Brion

There was a specific vote on this very issue. The result of the vote was to preemptively disambiguate city names in the US. --mav

When did that vote take place? The only time I see anything about that subject in the votes as recorded on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names)/Archive 3 was on the precise format to use when disambiguation did occur "subject to the above determination" (which determination was in fact normal disambiguation, not preemptive). At least, that was certainly my interpretation at the time, and I've seen nothing official or semi-official in the results to contridict it. --Brion 20:19 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)

Notice the word "all" in that vote. --mav

ALL the ones that are in fact disambiguated, ie the format is to be consistent when it is used. --Brion 20:40 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)

"All cities in the United States are to be designated in the [City, State] format." I don't see the word "disambiguation" anywhere in there. There was also no overarching statement before that establishing the context of disambiguation. --mav

City, Nation format

Subject to the above determination, cities are to be disambiguated as [City, Nation] unless there is there is a more specific rule such as [City, State] applicable to its country.

[...]

United States

All cities in the United States are to be designated in the [City, State] format.

Notice how the "United States" section is a subsection of "City, Nation format", which starts out by saying that the entire section is subject to the above vote, which was about pre-emptive vs natural disambiguation. --Brion 20:57 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)

Whew, mav, you've got me confused. What does "preemptively disambiguate" mean? :-) -- Zoe

It means that all cities in the US are to be in the [City, State] format. --mav

You know, pants (clothing), Internet (computing), United States (country)... Just to be sure. ;) --Brion

Those are not at all natural disambiguators. Furthermore there was no vote on disambiguating those things. [Los Angeles, California] is perfectly natural and widely used. I know you are just kidding though. --mav

Look at what links to Los Angeles, California and tell me which is the most widely used. --Brion

That's the beauty of redirects -- they are there for convenience. --mav

Which is exactly why Los Angeles can live at Los Angeles, while the more awkward Los Angeles, California can redirect to it. --Brion

- ::::::Should we redirect New Orleans, Louisiana to New Orleans? San Francisco, California to San Francisco? Boston, Massachusetts to Boston? -- Zoe

Yes, yes, and yes. --Brion

Well, when I tried to get movie names changed to "Name" (year) instead of "Name" (year movie), Maveric took it to the list for a vote. But this has already been voted on, so does that mean it needs to be brought up again? -- Zoe

It just was brought up, and I got shouted down. (YEAR movie) stays where it is needed. --mav

Right, mav, I wasn't trying to complain otherwise, just suggesting that if Brion feels strongly enough, we could vote again. -- Zoe

But this is counter to what was voted on Brion. --mav

Mav, that's exactly what I saw voted for. Everything you've cited at me so far supports my contention. --Brion

Gotta live with the vote, Brion.  :-) -- Zoe

I agree 100%, Zoe. Unfortunately, Mav's interpretation of what the vote was about appears to somehow be the polar opposite of mine. If I had realized he was that misguided at the time, I would have spoken up then. --Brion

Misguided? Sorry, I was just reading "All cities in the United States are to be designated in the [City, State] format." to mean that all cities in the US were to be in the [City, State] format. The wording "Subject to the above determination" was for the [City, Nation] format and the US convention came after that as being an exception. --mav

Eh, Mav, it was definitely NOT decided to disambiguate all US cities with [City, State], but only when necessary (i.e. normal disambiguation rules) as Brion is already pointing out. Of course, it is necessary in the cases of f.e. Los Angeles and San Francisco, since there are some other towns or hamlets that happen to have the same name. However, there's only one New Orleans, so that article can happily live at New Orleans.

As for redirects: I'd say Los Angeles is pretty much THE Los Angeles, same for San Francisco. So they should be at Los Angeles and San Francisco, with a block-format disambiguation at the top. Jeronimo

Then how the hell do you explain the wording that was used? "All cities in the United States are to be designated in the [City, State] format." seems pretty damn clear to me. --mav

That "damn clear" wording is from a vote that only 6 of the 20 voters participated in and was, as far as I know, never announced to be closed. I, and at least 13 others, were probably confused by the big number of issues being voted on. The ONLY two things that are actually decided (vote, and vote closed and result announced) are that 1) we will have normal disambiguation and 2) we will use the comma notation when disambiguation is required. Neither of the other stuff on the voting page is clear to me, so I cannot "the hell" explain it to myself, let alone anyone else. Therefore, we should sort out and fix this entire naming policy soon. I'm willing to do thies, but as people squibble over every detail, I'm not going to do it by myself and get blamed for everything if something is wrong (this is another example of mis-communication, since I'm apparently not the only one that had this view). I've left a few points (details really) open for discussion at the talk page. Go ahead and add this issue to either the main page or to the items to be discussed. Jeronimo

Topanga

Topanga, an unincorporated area, doesn't seem to have any Wikipedia articles or references, beyond a couple of listings for the State Park. In fact, the link Topanga goes to a music album (and it should probably be renamed "Topanga (Album)"). Topanga doesn't show up on the list of unincorporated areas here. Los_Angeles_County#Census-designated_places_which_are_not_cities. I believe that the article on the neighborhood/area should be designated "Topanga, California", which is the USPS designation, rather than "Topanga Canyon". Pi9 00:06, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know that Anaheim is not in Los Angeles County

In response to what BrownstoneKnockn said. I was cleaning up the article from what was there already, and added only what info given to me from someone who lives in the area, and they gave me Arrowhead Pond as a location. I only assumed that it was there because they said that, but I don't live there myself so I can't be blamed for putting it back. But then that's the beauty of a Wiki. You correct whatever you feel is necessary. You live there anyway, don't you? Riffsyphon1024 00:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I apologize if my summary was a bit abrasive. I just knew that someone was going to add it back because I made the original change as an unregistered user and didn't leave a reason so when it happened it was one of those pull-your-hair-out moments. ;-) -Brownstone 09:41, 24 Jan 2005

Ok then. Riffsyphon1024 17:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Economy

The logic of listing companies depending on whether their city is L.A.-adjacent or not seems odd. I suggest that we create one list with all L.A. County companies of note, regardless of city, here. -Will Beback 07:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Map

Can we get a map of LA County w/ each city and CDP labeled on it? I know you can click on each city's article and see it highlighted on the LA County map, but it'd be really useful to see them labeled on one big map. Passdoubt | Talk 17:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed with "Extreme" Prejudice

We don't think that the numero uno, most populous county in the country should have a "See also" link to the least populous? I know the "what's at the other extreme?" question popped into my head when I read the first sentence of this article. With a difference of about 9,758,830 people between the two, I think it provided a nice contrast. Curiously, -HiFiGuy 17:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Shopping Centers

I realized that the article doesn't have any list of shopping places in the county. Perhaps a list of malls and shopping centers and the suburbs they're located in should be added to the "Sites of Interest" section. AManSac 00:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a BAD idea. Some novice tried to create "List of shopping mall" articles for every state in the Union and articles on every shopping mall in the country as well. The last time I checked, nearly all of those lists have been deleted through the Articles for deletion process because the vast majority of shopping malls are non-notable, and Wikipedia is not a random indiscriminate collection of information. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Coolcaesar 20:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

L.A. County Maps

To Anyone Concerned:

I will be adding in the coming days (or weeks, depending on how long it takes) a series of .SVG maps to Wikimedia Commons showcasing cities and unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County to replace the .png maps currently being used in many of the city articles and to add maps to the articles for unincorporated areas that don't have them. This will be similar to what I have already done for all cities in Maricopa County. I have already uploaded one to the Los Angeles article for all to view, so if you would like to see an example of the maps I will upload, check it out there.

If anyone has any criticisms or complaints or anything like that, please let me know before I go through and upload some 150 maps to the commons and then change and edit some 150 articles about various cities in L.A. County

Regards, Ixnayonthetimmay 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

hows the weather?

Town Councils

This section of the unincorporated community discussion is rather fuzzy and inaccurate. Town Councils are recognized by the 5th District Supervisor (Antonovich), but they are not "official" government entities, and receive no funding or support from the county. They are simply "advisory" bodies to Sup. Antonovich. Antonovish lists 18 Town Councils on his website, but some (e.g. Roosevelt) are inactive (no regular meetings). Town Councils are different than the LA City Neighborhood Councils, in that they are not established by charter or ordinance. There are organizations in other Sup Districts which also represent their communities (Rowland Heights, etc), but they are not "Town Councils", and they are even less closely connected to the County government, basically neighborhood associations. Their relationship to the county is strictly unofficial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jma2120 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Article title

It seems to me that this article is clearly WP:PRIMARYUSAGE of Los Angeles County, if not the only usage, so why is it disambiguated with , California? Seems to me it should be at Los Angeles County (which already redirects here), just like Los Angeles is at Los Angeles and not at Los Angeles, California.

Any objections to moving this article from Los Angeles County, California to Los Angeles County? If you do object, please explain why in terms of Wikipedia naming policy, guidelines and conventions. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I object. This is an appropriate title. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate? On what basis is the current predisambiguated and overly precise title "appropriate"? If Los Angeles County, California is appropriate, why not Los Angeles County, California, USA, Earth? Oh, because ", Earth" and ", USA" are unnecessary (and therefore inappropriate)? Well, ", California" is just as unnecessary and just as inappropriate.

The most common name used to refer to the subject of this article is Los Angeles County, and this subject has primary use of that name. While Los Angeles County, California is more precise, additional precision is only appropriate when necessary: "Be precise when necessary; don't title articles ambiguously when the title has other meanings.". Los Angeles County is clearly sufficiently precise since it already redirects here. So, per Wikipedia naming conventions the more precise Los Angeles County, California is not appropriate, but Los Angeles County is. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Should be County of Los Angeles, the official title. Ucla90024 (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia naming conventions are to use the most common name rather than the official title of something as the article title. That's why we have Jimmy Carter and not James Earl Carter, for example. The official title of something is only relevant when it is commonly used to refer to the subject in question. As an example of common usage, every map I've ever looked at shows "Los Angeles County", not "County of Los Angeles". Also, the google test results are quite definitive:

Results 1 - 10 of about 492,000 for "County of Los Angeles"

Results 1 - 10 of about 7,900,000 for "Los Angeles County"

Does anyone have an argument for keeping this article at Los Angeles County, California and not moving it to Los Angeles County that is consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Is that why we have "University of California, Los Angeles" and not "UCLA", which is more common? :) Ucla90024 (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well, there is an argument to be made that that article should be at UCLA, but I think it's fair to say that "University of California, Los Angeles" is used much more frequently to refer to the university than is "County of Los Angeles" to refer to the county. In any case, simply being the offical/formal name is not in and of itself reason to make it the title. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is fine where it is. I object to moving it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Will, this is your second objection, both submitted without basis, much less with basis explained in terms of Wikipedia policy, conventions and guidelines. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have better things to do than sit around arguing over place names. I'd hope we'd all have better things to do. The existing title is fine, there is no need to change it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem of providing additional information for greater precision when it's not necessary is an issue that is much bigger than place names. It's about how all articles are named, and whether that's consistent with Wikipedia policies, conventions and guidelines. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles County seems sufficient to me at first blush. I'm having a hard time coming up with alternative uses that someone might realistically come up with that present a serious "challenge" to the primacy of the county itself. Of course, this issue is probably begging the discussion of a wider county naming scheme :/ Shereth 20:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So, then, there appears to be no argument nor even a reason to not move this article to Los Angeles County, much less one based on Wikipedia policy, guidelines and conventions. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles County, California → Los Angeles County — to be consistent with WP:COMMONNAME, WP:UCN, WP:D, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRECISION; Los Angeles County is more common name/usage and already redirects here; see above — Born2cycle (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose We just discussed this above. There's no good reason for this move. Give it a rest, already. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, the discussion above established there is no argument based on Wikipedia policy, guidelines and conventions to not move this article. If to be consistent with naming policy, guidelines and conventions -- which is the basis for this move request -- is not a good reason to rename an article, what is? --Born2cycle (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. As requester. In addition to complying with stated polices and guidelines identified in the request, so the title of this article does not incorrectly imply that Los Angeles County needs disambiguation because there are other uses of that name. There aren't other uses, so the title should not be disambiguated. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- IRP ☎ 21:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. No problem here to solve. --Una Smith (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• No problem? To be clear, is your position that inconsistency with naming conventions is not a problem that needs to be solved, are you saying that you don't believe the current name is inconsistent with naming conventions (if the latter, see my reply to Hmains just below)? Also, don't you agree that disambiguation of Los Angeles County (by adding , California) wrongly implies that the name Los Angeles County conflicts with other uses of that name? If so, don't you also agree that a misleading implication like that, or the elimination of being able to know whether disambiguation implies other significant uses, is a problem? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The current title is unambiguous, accurate, and consistent with one common convention for article titles, so I see no problem here needing to be solved, hence no move needed. --Una Smith (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the current title is unambiguous and accurate. But that's just as true for the proposed title, Los Angeles County. So on that score it's a wash. But you say the current title is consistent with "one common convention for article titles"? Which convention is that? Where is it documented? What about all the documented and long established conventions and guidelines with which the current title is inconsistent (again, see my reply to Hmains below), but with which the proposed titled is consistent? And again, don't you agree that the misleading implication of the current title that there are other significant uses of the name Los Angeles County is a problem? The upside to the move is these inconsistencies and misleading implications will be eliminated. What's the downside? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• oppose no good reason to make change; anything that can be done to help readers is of benefit; this and similar changes would do opposite. Also keep to be consistent with all its sister categories in Category:California counties. Hmains (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• I understand the impetus for being consistent with other California county articles, but isn't consistency with other articles in Wikipedia also important, arguably more important? Isn't that what naming conventions are for? WP:COMMONNAME says to use the most common name for the topic of an article. The most common name used to refer to this county is Los Angeles County, so the current title is inconsistent with that. WP:PRECISION adds that we should be precise when necessary (not merely "when anything can be done to help readers"). In this case the additional precision provided by , California is unnecessary (just as it was in Los Angeles, California which has been thankfully and finally renamed Los Angeles), and so the current title is inconsistent with WP:PRECISION. WP:D defines disambiguation as the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic. But the name Los Angeles County is associated with only one topic, the subject of this article, and so, by definition, disambiguation should not apply here. Yet the title is disambiguated never-the-less. It is true that under the Naming the specific topic articles section of that guideline it says that for place names "the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division ... often separated using a comma", but again, that is for when disambiguation is needed. Don't you agree that being consistent with all these fundamental naming conventions and guidelines by which all other Wikipedia articles are named is a good reason to change the title of this article? Don't you agree that just because articles for other California counties are named incorrectly (except those that are disambiguated with , California because there really is a conflict for its name, presumably with a county of the same name in another state) is no excuse to perpetuate the same error here? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no disambiguation at issue here. If disambiguation were at issue, then the proposed move would be a step backward. --Una Smith (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no disambiguation issue here. So why is the current title disambiguated from the most common name used to refer to the topic of this article? In other words, why is the title not disambiguated all the way to continent, Los Angeles County, California, United States of America, North America? Of course, that's rhetorical. The answer, is because it is unnecessary to dab all the way to continent. But what is the basis for disambiguating it at all? Why is it not at Los Angeles County? Isn't it equally unnecessary to dab even to state? So (this is not rhetorical), why is it unnecessarily (which is contrary to WP:PRECISION) dabbed to state? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I assume this was caused by the move of Los Angeles, California to Los Angeles and, while I wouldn't object to that move, I'd like to keep "Place, State" form a rule in US articles, not an exception. BTW, it is a guideline (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)). Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• That city-specific guideline, which continues to conflict with the overall guidelines for cities that are not on the AP list and do not require disambiguation, does not apply to county names. So I understand what you would like, but what you would like is inconsistent with the guidelines. But in the end, despite claims that Wikipedia is not a democracy, "might makes right" around here, so you'll probably have your way, judging by how the voting is going so far. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. The move follows the Wikipedia-wide guidelines of WP:UCN and WP:COMMONNAME, which ought to be good enough for the move. --seav (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per above arguments. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Have you not noticed that all the oppose arguments have not withstood even a modicum of questioning? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment I don't think this qualifies for WP:COMMON, since it's sitting there already with a disambiguator. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Right, not WP:COMMON, but WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UCN: "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Los Angeles County, without any disambiguator, is that. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Way-of-life issues

I thought it would be interesting to post votes on way-of-life issues for each California county, to indicate how culturally liberal or conservative each county is.

I started with Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage. Someone delected this from the Los Angeles County page, thought it belonged in the article about the proposition. I have posted for most other counties, and noticed that someone had already posted for the 3 inland counties that rejected Proposition 8.

Another possibility is Proposition 4 (2008), which would have required parental notifications for abortions by minors, but was defeated. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

On Nov. 4, 2008 Los Angeles County voted 53.9 % against Proposition 4 which would require parental notification for abortions by minors. It also voted 50.1 % for Proposition 8 which amended the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriages.

Sources: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000004.htm http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000008.htm Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There are many propositions every year. Unless you plan on posting the results for all propositions, there is no reason to single out certain ones. And just showing the results of some 2008 propositions instead of older ones (Prop 13 and Prop 187 were notable ones) appears to conflict with WP:RECENTISM. The results are more appropriate on the articles relating to the specific proposition rather than each county's article. Alanraywiki (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as the prop 8 results are being added to all counties, I think it's useful and appropriate. Prop 8 is one of those rare propositions that gained significant national notability, so I don't think it's fair to require the results of all propositions. It would be preferable, but not necessary, to see some other notable election results as well. Voting results like this, even when limited in scope, inform the reader about county demographics in a way that traditional demographic data does not. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Article's photo

Question. Why the infobox photo, which emcompasses ONLY the city of Los Angeles is in the article with the county. The photos should emcompass the entire county area, not just the city itself. A request is there to update the gallery to fit article. --Moreau36 (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the current mosaic (taken from the City of L.A. article), includes a generic beach that could be in the county, and the San Gabriel Mountains, albeit behind the skyscrapers of downtown. But there's definitely too much Hollywood. Maybe a Joshua Tree from the desert and a view of the port would help.   Will Beback  talk  19:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• You are right. The whole city of Los Angeles is within the limits of the County of Los Angeles. The County seat is located in the City of Los Angeles. Most of the landmarks are located in the City of Los Angeles. The County's Music Center, Hall of Administration, the Court houses are located in the City of Los Angeles. Maybe we can have the Magic Mountain, Queen Mary, Pasadena City Hall, the General Hospital or the Rose Bowl, which are not located within the city limits, added to the photo. Ucla90024 (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Los Angeles County = most incorporated places in the U.S.?

I removed the statement that "Los Angeles County, by far, has the most incorporated muncipalities in the country", per Cook County, Illinois, which has 130 (including townships, which are active muncipalities according to Illinois state law) according to the county's article and website; --Moreau36 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Races and Demographics

I feel the "Races" section of this article needs to be incorporated into the "Demographics" section. There is some unique information not presented in Demographics, so it would be inappropriate to wholly delete the section, however the title of the section is unclear. Something like "Racial and ethnic demographics" would be much more helpful, as the content is not all strictly related to race. Does anyone object or have other thoughts? Cai Wen (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if we keep it, it should be combined with the demographics section. But I don't see a good reason to keep it. The racial info in the demographics section is impeccably sourced, while the "Races" section is not as well sourced. I think it'd be better to just delete it.   Will Beback  talk  06:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it pending further discussion.   Will Beback  talk  09:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Religion section

Christianity is the largest faith practiced in the county, yet it is the only religion for which no data is provided; it just gets a passing mention at the very beginning ("Other than Christian churches..."). It's not very encyclopedic to ignore the predominant religion in a "Religion" section. 68.40.44.250 (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Geobox

I'd like to see the geobox returned as it is superior, and had a better format, looked nicer, better fields and info, and easier to use. Its the purpose the geoboxes were invented in the first place. And I know the montage was removed because its "just stuff in LA (the city)" but um, the city is in the county and so its still a montage of things in the city, if it was being removed it should have been replaced with SOMETHING. Please take the time to return the geobox. The idea that "other counties dont use it" is a ridiculous argument and yea they will be soon, I know of two that used it long before LA county.Camelbinky (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is what happens when similar, but independently developed, families of templates are created. And then you get heated discussions like Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 6#Template:Infobox Australian Place that proposes to deleted one of those families. Since the California articles primary use the {{infobox settlement}} family of templates instead of ones that look similar to {{Infobox Australian place}} and {{geobox}}, that should be used here IMO. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Geobox is not independently developed, they are the next generation of infobox and are to be used from now on. Since you are unable, or unwilling, to put things like highest elevation etc that were in the geobox please put the geobox back or finally put EVERYTHING that was in the geobox into the infobox that you so admire and remove the crap about demographics which is not needed in an infobox anyways. The infobox looks like crap. If your problem is inconsistency then go ahead and change the other California counties and settlements to the proper geobox. This has gone on long enough, the infobox looks terrible.Camelbinky (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the demographic portion just because it's unnecessary. --Moreau36 (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• The use of whether to use Geobox or another infobox template has been frequently disputed. The most recent discussion was Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 3#Template:Geobox. The current consensus there was not to merge and delete geobox, but continue to maintain the two parallel sets of templates, even if some users who supported Geobox felt that it "looked better" and Infobox settlement looked "worse".[1] There is also currently no consensus to make geobox" the next generation of infobox and are to be used from now on". Thus, there is no way I can "go ahead and change all the other California counties and settlements to the proper geobox", and make that kind of massive changes, without getting complaints from others. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

County GDP

Please include the county GDP figure $500 billion (equal to Sweden) in the article. proof —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.29.2 (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Population

Um, there are over 12 million people who live in the city of Los Angeles itself, yet, it is written that the county, which consists of many towns & cities, has a population of 9 million. Why???? 06:39, 2 July 2013‎ User: Crelache

The city has less than 4 million people. Perhaps you are confusing the city with the urban area or the metropolitan area. —Stepheng3 (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Motto

What is the L.A. County motto? Does it have one? – Illegitimate Barrister, 12:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)