Talk:Hollywood, Los Angeles/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Hollywood, Los Angeles. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Angelino Heights, Los Angeles, California which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The following is a closed 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 moved all per request and moved Hollywood, Los Angeles, California to Hollywood. As pointed out below, Hollywood already redirects to this page and needs no further qualification. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hollywood, Los Angeles, California → Hollywood, Los Angeles — Per Talk:Los Angeles#Various move requests involving LA Neighborhoods, it was decided that the California should be dropped from LA Neighborhoods, because the title of the LA article is Los Angeles, there is no other Los Angeles with neighborhood articles, and just because it was shorter (WP:COMMONNAME). This is only about dropping the California. Don't turn it into dropping the Los Angeles as well!. Four other neighborhoods which had been accidentally left out of the discussion earlier are also included. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 00:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

For Hollywood, I suspect all qualifiers (both Los Angeles and California) could be dropped without issue. If a qualifier is deemed necessary for Hollywood, California not Los Angeles should be employed. For the others, I support without issue.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Why California and not Los Angeles? Hollywood is not a seperate city. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Common name. As I said before, I don't believe it requires one but when left with no option reliable sources seem to view it as the most preferable option (google book search; 12,100 hits for "Hollywood, Los Angeles" -wiki and 116,000 hits for "Hollywood, California" -wiki).--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Labattblueboy. Hollywood is world famous and clear primary usage; the title already redirects here anyway. Same for Greater Hollywood. No problem moving the other two. Station1 (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with "Hollywood" or with "Hollywood, California". The latter because it's not an independent city, and the former because this isn't necessarily the primary usage. When people write "Hollywood" they are frequently referring to the mainstream American film industry. I think it's best to keep that name a disambiguation page. Will Beback talk 21:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hollywood, is not a dab. page and, to my knowledge, has never been so. It was the article title until 2008, when the current title was adopted.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: I agree with "Hollywood, Los Angeles" instead of the current name in order to bring it into conformity with the other neighborhood articles. Will Beback talk 21:21, 5 May 2010 (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.

Citations

All material in Wikipedia must be verifiable. We now have over a dozen citations that look like this: "Los Angeles Times (January 10, 1982)" Back in the 1980s, the heyday of the newspaper, it published hundreds of pages a day. Even in simpler times it was voluminous. To simply list the date of publication, without even the article title much less the page number or byline, makes it very difficult to verify the citations. If the idea is to improve the article then these cites fall far short of the ideal and are almost useless. Will Beback talk 00:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Motion Picture Industry

I have deleted the text regarding the D.W Griffith first movie in Hollywood using the Phillip French web site. This is not a valid source for any reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.170.184.252 (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The so-called "Phillip French web site" is The Guardian, a respected UK newspaper.[1] I've restored the material. Will Beback talk 05:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted this again because the entry, "Prolific director D. W. Griffith was the first one to make a motion picture in Hollywood. His 17-minute short film In Old California, which was released on 10 March 1910, was filmed entirely in the village of Hollywood.[24], is not in compliance with the Wikipedia guidelines regarding the us of references. This is a web site that has no credibility. Will Beback should not demand this site to be a referance. In past Will Beback has demanded that the use of an unreferenced website to be removed because of the Wikipedia policy. Does Will Beback have a double standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.170.184.252 (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure which source you're talking about. the text you've repeatedly deleted is this:

Prolific director D. W. Griffith was the first one to make a motion picture in Hollywood. His 17-minute short film In Old California, which was released on 10 March 1910, was filmed entirely in the village of Hollywood.
- Philip French (28 February 2010). "How 100 years of Hollywood have charted the history of America". Guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 24 May 2010.

Again, the source is The Guardian. What source do you think is being used?

Also, is this user:Whithj, the descendant of H.J. Whitley? If so then there's a COI because you seem to be trying to assert that your ancestor's home was the site of the actual first film. Could you please sign in when editing? Will Beback talk 08:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure who this person is but it is not my relative. As I am sure you know we had agreed to disagree. Perhaps it is a old time Hollywood resident. They would know that Griffith never said he was the first to film in Hollywood because he wasn't. He lived into the 1940 and I am sure he would have if he did. I think what has happened is he went outside of Los Angeles to film but not as far as Hollywood. But now almost 100 years later someone is trying to change history. I have no control over who is doing this but I am stilling watching to keep history correct. However I am still honoring our agreement. I am trying to sign my post but at 86 years old I must have made a mistake again. I clicked the wavy line below and my signature did not appear. so I will just try and put whithj. Whithj (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Whithj! So the anon isn't you? Sorry for the mistaken identity. Since you're here and haven't addressed it, let me ask you whether you think The Guardian is an unreliable source for this assertion. The anon seemed to think we were citing someone's personal website. Will Beback talk 21:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to post earlier and it was lost. I hope it does not appear as a duplicate so here goes. I do not find "The Guardian" as a bad source however I do not feel they verify the historical information they post. I would be happier if you could find a book that was published between 1920-1950 that stated this information. I believe D W Griffith lived into the 1940's and he never stated he had filmed the first Hollywood movie. The Hollywood community which includes the "Hollywood Heritege Museum" does not support this finding. I think perhaps a movie was done on the outskirts of Los Angeles and now someone is trying to claim it is Hollywood. My great-grandmother wrote in her journal and personally told me that the first filming in Hollywood was done on October 26, 1911 by Al Christi and the Horseley Brothers. They went on to form Nestor Studios. Since I have not been able to find any historical source before 1950 that contradicts this I will stand firm that the first movie filmed in Hollywood was filmed on October 26,1911. However, since I agreed to disagree with you I will not change the listing even though I feel it is misleading. Whithj (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the claim that the Griffith movie was made outside of Hollywood? Are all sources since 1950 wrong? Where does the Hollywood Heritage Museum make a statement on this matter? Will Beback talk 23:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This book from 1972 says it was filmed in Hollywood.[2] Is there any source that says it was filmed elsewhere? Will Beback talk 23:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I want to emphasize that I am quite sure that your great-grandmother was giving what she believed was an accurate account. But it's very simple to see that she might not have been aware of the earlier movie. Perhaps she was elsewhere when it was filmed. Since there were no filming permits it's possible that no one in an official capacity made note of it. The area was pretty sparse back then, so it's possible that a film was shot without everyone knowing about it. (the craft trucks were smaller in those days). Griffith made movies in a variety of locations as he worked his way west. He might not have even heard of Hollywood until he got there and may have forgotten about it until he moved back there years later. One dusty village is much the same as another. If I were a director and took a film crew to a slightly remote location I might not know or care if I was the first one to film there so long as I got the shots I want. It's quite possible that the whole thing was discovered by historians looking through records decades later. But the claim, legitimate or not, is now widely accepted, and there were commemorations in 2010 to mark 100 years of filming in Hollywood. Will Beback talk 10:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Real Estate

how much does it cost to live there? not in the rich district, but for regular people--99.101.160.159 (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

How many English people lived there?

Just wondering?109.154.25.148 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Approximately 75,123. Unreal7 (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Lede is wordy and politicized

This: "a highly diverse, densely populated, mostly immigrant, low-income residential neighborhood" seems politicized and too insecure for a lede, especially in an imporrtant article. It is clunky and not representative of a good article on Hollywood. Jack B108 (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It is an accurate description of the neighborhood as reported by a Reliable Source, much like those in other articles about L.A. neighborhoods. Perhaps other editors could word it better without removing the important facts about this place. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's so bad right now that it is humorous, in a sad way. I could also make up an 'accurate' description of photosynthesis, showing and describing 100+ enzyme-catalyzed reactions, but it would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia such as this. Jack B108 (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with that phrase. However, mentioning Hollywood's famous commercial and entertainment industry should be mentioned first in the lede, per the inverted pyramid writing style. That is the most important point about Hollywood that sets it unique with all the other LA neighborhoods, and that is what readers should be expecting first, not the makeup of the population in the residential areas. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the lede looks much better and more professional now. How do you spell your handle Zzyzx11, good grief? thanks, Jack B108 (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 22 July 2013. The result of the move review was endorsed.

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The proponent would like all the neighborhoods of Los Angeles to have a common style, which is 'XXX, Los Angeles'. He has also suggested (bottom of page) that some uses of Hollywood actually refer to the US film industry. To the extent that this move is asking for 'Hollywood, Los Angeles' it does not have consensus. There's already a hatnote on the article that will help to direct people who should be looking for Cinema of the United States. The 2010 consensus in Talk:Los Angeles/Archive 5 merely implies that 'XXX, Los Angeles, California' can drop the use of California. That previous discussion says nothing about whether XXX has to move to 'XXX, Los Angeles' if it is currently missing the 'Los Angeles.' EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hollywood → Hollywood, Los Angeles – Consensus was reached at Talk:Los_Angeles/Archive_5#Various_move_requests_involving_LA_Neighborhoods to rename all L.A. neighborhoods, but Hollywood appears to be the only neighborhood not to have followed suit. It is important to Wikipedia that this article be recognized as concerning the neighborhood and not as an article about the motion picture industry or "Hollywood" as a stereotyped concept. There seems to be no reason for not adhering to the general naming policy for Los Angeles neighborhoods GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. No other place named Hollywood that would require clarifying that this was the one in Los Angeles. The other neighborhoods in LA are not well known. Hollywood is very iconic. Apteva (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose entirely unnecessary. Further disambiguation (via comma) is not required for users to understand the article title. The only reason for common disambiguation is if, by chance, there are other Hollywoods that might challenge as primary topic.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment. Actually, although consensus was reached on Talk:Los_Angeles/Archive_5#Various_move_requests_involving_LA_Neighborhoods on May 4, 2010, further consensus to rename Hollywood, Los Angeles, California to just Hollywood was made and closed a couple of weeks later on May 19, 2010, per the discussion above, in reaction to that first discussion -- not because it merely did not follow suit. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. The notability of this subject has nothing to do with its status as part of LA. In fact, I suspect that many readers do not even know that it is an LA neighborhood when they first land here. How we might title our articles on Fairfax or East Hollywood should not be relevant. Kauffner (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Absolutely common usage. Moagim (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Completely unnecessary. It's the only neighbourhood of Los Angeles that's known everywhere around the world. Doesn't need a qualifier. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. This proposal epitomizes WP:Unnecessary disambiguation, contradicts WP:COMMONNAME, and the naturalness, precision, conciseness and arguably the recognizability WP:CRITERIA at WP:AT, all in the name of consistency with some dubiously arrived-at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in some obscure discussion? Uh, no. --B2C 00:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Gratifying to see the common sense comments here. I live in CA now, but I've lived and traveled all over, and people definitely know where and what this 'Hollywood' is, thank you Bob Seger & the Silver Bullet Band ("Hollywood Nights") etc. Jack B108 (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Support standardization. Powers ^T 15:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering that this goes against the standards mentioned WP:COMMONNAME and WP:AT your argument actually discounts your own case. What you are calling for is not applying standardization but a going with a small group of articles going against the main standard.--70.49.82.84 (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. I was under the impression that neighborhood articles should always be qualified with the city name. And even if that's not the case, if consensus was reached to do so for all Los Angeles neighborhoods, then there's no reason to make this one an exception. Powers ^T 19:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose – This proposal is convention taken to extreme. We already allow exceptions for cities (e.g. Los Angeles instead of Los Angeles, California). Hollywood is known as Hollywood, not Hollywood, Los Angeles. --Article editor (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, Watts, Los Angeles is known as Watts, and Encino, Los Angeles is known as Encino, so what is the diff? — except it seems that the whole world wants to "own" Hollywood despite the decision of L.A. editors that their neighborhoods should have the city name attached to them. For this article, Hollywood is simply a neighborhood, nothing less and nothing more. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. But your point is well taken; those (and others) should be moved to the more concise titles. --B2C 17:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

- Article is about a neighborhood, not an industry. Readers who go here should be made aware by the title that the article concerns the Hollywood district of Los Angeles, not the Hollywood of myth-making nor the Hollywood in Florida. WP:OTHERSTUFF does not control because a decision has already been made by consensus to name all Los Angeles neighborhoods with their name plus the name of the city. Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title states:

Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.

Editors who link to "Hollywood" when they want to refer to the U.S. entertainment industry are mistaken: They should link directly to "Cinema of the United States." GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I might add that not including the name of the city leads to such editing as this one, wherein a beginning editor confused Hollywood, Los Angeles, with Hollywood, Florida. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

- - What links here. Check out Special:WhatLinksHere/Hollywood to see how many articles send the reader to "Hollywood, Los Angeles," instead of to "Cinema of the United States." A bot should send all "Hollywood" links to a WP:Disambiguation page so an editor can make sure the reader goes to the right article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why is LA's proximity to Mexico Advantageous?

In the Motion picture industry section, the sentence "By 1912, major motion-picture companies had set up production near or in Los Angeles because of the location's proximity to Mexico, as well as the region's favorable year-round weather.[16]" doesn't make it clear why being close to Mexico is part of the reason why motion picture companies set up production in LA. I can hazard a guess — perhaps there was plenty of cheap labor? But I really have no idea. Besides, if being close to Mexico was so helpful, why didn't they set up shop in San Diego, which is much closer? In fact, the Cinema of the United States article has the exact same sentence, also with no explanation. Damienivan (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

TIme to double check borders?

The City of L.A. posted a city plaque on Melrose just past La Cienega, calling the area "Hollywood" according to Mapping LA this is not part of Hollywood borders. The City may view it otherwise and they are the official source. Can someone look to another source to cite for the borders?

--Daniel E Romero (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, but I don't think a city plaque is a "reliable, third-party, published source. . . with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> Hollywood: Chronicle of an Empire (Lihaas (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)).

Hollywood - Muslim link / Political links

There should be a section clearly stating that Hollywood has changed in terms that they are now a political machine mostly serving elites, socialites with a muslim agenda (iranians).

suggested to include this section: Hollywood has become increasingly political. Most of Hollywood actors are supporters of the DNC and pro-muslim, pro-liberal gay and were instrumental in electing Barack Obama to the office. http://www.forbes.com/2006/11/22/celebrity-activist-hollywood-pf-philo-cz_sc_1122celeb.html. A current trend is for actors to advise on political candidates in exchange for funding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.72.45 (talk)

Please read WP:SYNTH. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This wouldn't go in the Hollywood, Los Angeles, article because your suggested insertion has to do with the movie industry, not about the neighborhood. Make your suggestion at Cinema of the United States. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

East Hollywood

It says that Hollywood is flanked by East Hollywood to the East, but the mapping LA map in the section shows East Hollywood within the boundaries of Hollywood. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Alf. It looks to me like they are two separate neighborhoods: http://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/region/central-la/ Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Greater Hollywood, Los Angeles?

There is presently an article for Greater Hollywood, Los Angeles. This article has gone unsourced since 2006. From searching, it's obvious that "Greater Hollywood" is a term in wide use, but there doesn't seem to be any widespread agreement on what precisely it means, and there's no coverage I could find of the "Greater Hollywood" area per se (just business describing themselves as serving the Greater Hollywood community). Under the circumstances I think it would make sense to merge that article into this one. Thoughts? —Tim Pierce (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge. There is no WP:Reliable source that defines "Greater Hollywood." The definition in Greater Hollywood, Los Angeles is simply some Wikipedian's idea of what the term means. WP should always have a source for a neighborhood's boundaries, or even its existence, be in Mapping L.A. or the Thomas Guide, or whatever. If not WP:Merge, then WP:Delete. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Rename to Hollywood (region). I don't know who created that page, but I suspect it originated out of the original structure of this article as created on 25 March 2005 by User:Jleon, who is still active. At that time, this article was organized by regions. It was then changed to the current alphabetical order on 27 May 2013 at edit by User:BeenAroundAWhile. (On a separate note, I was unaware of this article had been changed to alphabetical order which appears to have been a really bad idea and I would support changing it back to a regional focus.) The reason there needs to be a separate article for the Hollywood area is that there are several neighborhoods that are usually associated with Hollywood, like Los Feliz, but which aren't associated with any other regions of the city. Los Feliz isn't part of downtown or Mid-City or the Valley; it's just of those places near Hollywood. Furthermore, if we get rid of the article on Greater Hollywood, then we will end up making a mess out of the L.A. City infobox (which tracks the old organization of this article based on regions) which means this issue also needs to be raised on the talk page there. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Los Angeles is one single city, and within it are many neighborhoods, and everybody has his or her own idea as to where neighborhoods begin and end. Fortunately, the L.A. Times did quite a thorough study of the neighborhoods a few years ago, grouping them into regions. That is a very good source for defining neighborhoods, but not the only one. Thomas Guide is another. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  - Are you saying that Los Feliz and Silver Lake don't fall into any particular region? What do you suggest we group them with? Rampart? That was not a good idea. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't Hollywood from Holyrood?

Holyrood, Scotland where one of the Queen's palaces are? CaribDigita (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Royal Sun Alliance - Hollywood Bollywood link

Royal Sun Alliance that recently had accounting scandals has been insuring Hollywood and may have involvement in other illegal activities such as spying.

Money Laundering

Hollywood was initially established by the drug mafia for money laundering purposes. With Bollywood now also using Hollywood studios significant amounts of drug money from the Caribbean and Latin America is laundered into movie revenues. Bollywood has a significant presence in illegal activities in Jamaica, Queens and Hollywood in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.248.95 (talk)

Wrong article and no sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Districts vs. Neighborhoods

I have noticed that many articles describe neighborhoods in Los Angeles as districts. To my knowledge the City of Los Angeles refers to regions of the city as neighborhoods and does not mention the word "districts" in any description. For now, I'm going to change the intro and infobox to reflect this, based off the info from LAcity.org and the Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils. If anyone can show me something official that mentions districts (and which neighborhoods are districts, if any), feel free to change it back.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't need anything official that labels certain areas as districts. What we need are WP:Reliable sources. If such a source calls any given area a district, then we could use that term to describe the area in question, pinning the nomenclature on the source. On the other hand, if there is a discrepancy in the sources, then I guess we would have to go with the most common use, or the most Reliable. What do others think? Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that most are neighborhoods, not districts. A striking exception is districts in Downtown shown here on the template. I don't think any of these should be changed to neighborhood as district is the common usage and possibly the official use also. Fettlemap (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Economically diverse?

I'm a little confused about the words "Economically diverse" this part in the lead,

Hollywood is also a highly ethnically diverse, densely populated, economically diverse neighborhood and retail business district.

The median price of homes in Hollywood is about $1.31 million and the average price of rent is $10,000. How in any way can this be considered "economically diverse"?

The link cited here is not to Hollywood, but to the Hollywood Hills, an entirely different place. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hollywood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090707022548/http://www.hollywoodchamber.net:80/icons/parade.asp to http://hollywoodchamber.net/icons/parade.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand from the above exactly what is to be done. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: You (or someone else who is willing) is supposed to check whether the web.archive.org link is functional, as the bot cannot always determine that itself – Archive.org may archive 404 pages that do not send the proper header, or the chosen archived version may not be suitable as a reference if the information is no longer there in case of dynamically-changing pages. I have taken a look and it seems this archive link works so there is nothing to be done here now. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

No Drinking in Hollywood

The section Incorporation and merger says:

Hollywood was incorporated as a municipality on November 14, 1903, by a vote of 88 for and 77 against. On January 30, 1904, the voters in Hollywood decided, by a vote of 113 to 96, for the banishment of liquor in the city, except when it was being sold for medicinal purposes. Neither hotels nor restaurants were allowed to serve wine or liquor before or after meals.

Obviously this was a city ordinance and nothing to do with the later Congress imposition of Prohibition, ( and so not repealed by that Repeal ), but was it ever ended, or has no alcohol ever been drunk in Hollywood from 1904 to now ?

Claverhouse (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Good question. Of course that ordinance is no longer in effect, and it was probably ended even before the two cities, Hollywood and Los Angeles, consolidated. I will do some research and try to get the answer. I thank you for the comment. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I checked the L.A. Times through the public library and could find no indication that the ordinance was repealed. Short of going to the city archives, I don't think we are going to find any date for it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Filmmaking patents issue

This part of the article is informative "By 1912, major motion-picture companies had set up production near or in Los Angeles.[17] In the early 1900s, most motion picture patents were held by Thomas Edison's Motion Picture Patents Company in New Jersey, and filmmakers were often sued to stop their productions. To escape this, filmmakers began moving out west, where Edison's patents could not be enforced" but it should probably name who these filmmakers are, like which ones or reference a source to the statement. I've noticed neither this article nor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_the_United_States nor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Patents_Company mention exactly which studios would not pay their licensing fees to Edison. The articles only mention that film makers began moving out west but none of the articles name exactly which ones did so to escape Edison. One of the articles mentions which companies moved west and I can see the years they moved on the company wiki page but moving doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't pay. One/all of these articles needs to name who the companies are so it can be fact checked or at least give a reliable source to the statements. Lenneth (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hollywood history

Early discussion

I am the grandson of HJ Whitley, the Father of Hollywood. I am 86 years old and I am going to try to correct the history of Hollywood section. Because of my age it may take awhile. I would appreciate that when I do post text with references that the old history which is incorrect is not just put back. I realize that a book published in 1936 or so had much incorrect information and is used as a source for future books that are now being published. The information I have came from my grandparents and sources that are reliable. I will reference them and hopefully this will solve the problem. If you have any questions feel free to address them in this section. I am not well versed in computers so I hope you will be patient with me. Thanks for helping me correct history. Whithj (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC) whithj

Thanks for participating. Your knowledge of the topic is appreciated. As you may appreciate, we can't rely on the personal knowledge of Wikipedia editors so a core policy states that all content must be verifiable from reliable, published sources. So long as you cite those sources other editors can follow you and clean up any formatting issues or other computer-type problems. This page has many watchers so you're not alone. Will Beback talk 22:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Whitley Papers (1889-1946)

Are these papers published or in a public library? If they are privately held then they aren't verifiable and shouldn't be used as sources.

"H. J. Whitley the Town Builder" Los Angeles Times (may 18, 1902).

There are many mentions of Whitley in the L.A. Times archive, but I can't find this article on that date. Is it correct? Will Beback talk 01:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The papers are in the UCLA Library. The LA Times article is correct. Contact the LA Times archives.Whithj (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)whithj

What is the actual source? A letter, a diary, or? If it's not published, then even if it's in a library it probably doesn't qualify. If it's marginal then it'd be best to attribute. Something like, "According to Whitley's diary..." Will Beback talk 07:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The publications are in the Charles E. Young Research Library Department of Special Collections. They have been historically verified by the library staffWhithj (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)whithj.

Los Angeles Times Historical Archives (ProQuest) 2 Digitized reproduction of the Los Angeles Times from its beginnings. Currently contains 1881-1986. Searchable by (keywords, author's names, articles, dates, etc.) or browseable by full page or issue. Includes photos, graphics and advertisements. Found in the Los Angles Public Library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whithj (talk • contribs) 08:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The Whitley papers, if they haven't been published, are probably not reliable, verifiable sources. The Keith book was self-published, so it isn't usable either. Assuming that the Times articles can be verified, they should be fine but we should take self-serving assertions with a grain of salt. The best sources are academic books and articles, and we should try to use those where available. Will Beback talk 06:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please go to www.thefatherofhollywood.com. It has many of the L A Times Articles and will continue to have more each day. It is very time consuming to post all this so please be patient. The Keith book is no longer self-published. It has been picked up by Tate Publishing and will be released August 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whithj (talk • contribs) 06:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

When Tate [3]? publishes it then the situation changes. That hasn't happened yet. Let's avoid adding anything more from it until we know the status. As for the Whitley papers, unless they are also going to be published they aren't suitable sources. Will Beback talk 21:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the book is published and copies are sold. The release date is August 2010 because it is waiting for the audio to be finished. The Whitley Papers are used as sources in the Owensmouth Baby by Catherine Mulholland done by the Santa Susana Press which is a University Press. Did you go and look at the Los Angeles Times References at http://www.thefatherofhollywood.com/media_Room.shtml as I asked. You will see that there are quite a few of them listed. Can you help link them. I am 86 and getting worn out trying to do this but I will not stop until it is done. It may just take me a while. I am sure that you and I have much in common - mainly our desire to make sure that history is told truthfully. Also I had asked if their was any area of concern? I have added some links by scanning a few pages of Catherine Mulhollands book. She is the daughter of William Mulholland. I am sure you have heard of him.Whithj (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding citations to the Whitley papers. And this "reference" doesn't appear sufficient either: First Hollywood movie filmed on Whitley Estate on October 26, 1911 The Keith book, if published by a known publisher is OK, but please don't over do it. Will Beback talk 07:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you realize, you sound like an effing idiot, Will Beback? If it were up to you, the Bible would never have been written, because it is based on oral tradition handed down for centuries with no "verifiable sources" before someone set pen to a papyrus scroll. I'd rather trust the word of a lucid old man than what I find on the pages of Time Magazine or the New York Times.—Quicksilver^{T @} 17:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sure Will Beback will offer his or her own response to the above, but I would offer two comments: (1) Ad hominem attacks are totally inappropriate here (or, really, anywhere); and (2)you really need to read WP:NOR. Wikipedia is a lot of things, but it is not the Bible, nor any other compendium of oral histories. One of Wikipedia's basic rules is that all content must be verifiable from reliable, published sources. DoctorJoeE (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doctor Joe. Perhaps you could help with the verification. There are many sources at www.TheFatherofHollywood.com but since I am 86 years old it is hard for me to seat at a computer to long. The Father of Hollywood by Galeyn Whitley Keith can be purchased at BarnesandNoble.com. The book by Katherine Mulholland can be bought on Amazon. She used the Whitley Papers in her book so they must have been verifiable. Many of the books are self published that are used as sources on the Hollywood site yet they have not been questioned. Why?Whithj (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think my comment above sounds cranky and irascible, DoctorJoeE, you're right. Read from the top, user Will Beback's handling of this matter comes across to me as pure snobbery, like stroking a cat against the grain. Maybe Will Beback will miss this opportunity, but someone who is seriously researching Hollywood history will stumble across this Talk Page and jump on it. Now, there are many Wikipedia articles that use "published" sources, but the "reliability" thereof is debatable, and no one seems to question it. It sounds to me that the material user Whithj is offering may meet or exceed the WP criteria for acceptability, except it's in printed form and someone would actually need to get a physical copy and read it. Evidently, certain Wikipedians couldn't be bothered, because it's not a few keystrokes and mouse clicks away on their computers.—Quicksilver^{T @} 22:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What it looks like to me is that a descendant of Whitley and single purpose editor is deleting sourced material and replacing it with less-reliable sources, including a book that he presumably wrote, which promote the role of Whitley in the history of Hollywood. Even if we walk/drive/fly to the UCLA library, personal papers are not a published source so they're unusable. Will Beback talk 23:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, chill, please, everybody. Indulge me for a nanosecond and look at the big picture: Our common goal here, presumably, is to create a reliable reference work AND convince the general public that it IS reliable. Whenever I tell anybody I'm involved with Wikipedia, 9 times out of 10 the response is, "Why are you wasting your time? Everybody knows it's full of bogus information!" That's the conventional wisdom -- and for a while, it was true. And while it's a lot less true now, the perception remains. A big reason for permitting only verifiable content is to dispel that perception. I agree we sometimes throw out the baby with the bathwater by refusing unpublished observations, but only by making everything verifiable will we ever end up with a true encyclopedia whose accuracy will not be questioned. Whithj, I will be happy to help to the extent that I can, and I'll give it a go as time permits, because I believe your intentions are honorable and unselfish. And I believe there can be a place in Wikipedia for unique information like yours, as long as we can find a way to meet the verifiability criteria. But let's all be civil about it, okay? Cheers, DoctorJoeE (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The first version of The Father of Hollywood was published by BookSurge, a vanity press. The new edition is published by Tate Publishing & Enterprises, which is also considered a vanity press.[4] Per WP:SELFPUB, neither edition would qualify as a source for Wikipedia. Will Beback talk 03:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Tate Publishing is a Traditional Publisher. Traci Jones, Marketing Representative, Tate Publishing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.64.115 (talk • contribs)

I presume that this posting comes as a result of a request form an editor here. Tate may see itself as a traditional publisher, but that is not how others see it. The "Publisher Standards Board" calls it a "misleading book publishing" company, and a scam to be avoided.[5] Will Beback talk 22:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually who is the "Publisher Standards Board" I tried all the links on their site and they go to no where. That said I wonder if you have even looked at the links I have tried to work on. You will see there are many. Why do you still question H J Whitley's role in Hollywood? Do you still question that he is the "Father of Hollywood'? What other information do you have that were historically printed before 1950? Thanks for letting me know where you are getting historically correct info so I can review it. Whithj (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

They call themselves "The Self Regulatory Trade Organization (SRTO) for the Book Publishing Industry". Elsewhere they say they are re-doing their website, which appears to have gone poorly.[6] The view of Tate is shared by others. The well-known blog, Writers Beware, includes Tate on their '"Two Thumbs Down" Publishers List'.[7] Note the comments from readers/authors. Here's a 49-page thread on Tate Publishing in the Absolute Write forum.[8]

I'm not questioning that Whitley had the nickname "Father of Hollywood". I'm questioning how much weight he deserves in this and other articles, and the use of sources that don't meet WP:V. An unpublished diary, for example. There are numerous books on the history of the Los Angeles area and Hollywood in particular:

History of Hollywood, by Edwin O. Palmer 1937
History of Hollywood by Patricia Adler 1968
Hollywood, land and legend by Zelda Cini and Bob Crane, with Peter H. Brown. 1980
Hollywood, the first hundred years by Bruce T. Torrence. 1982
Early Hollywood Marc Wanamaker and Robert W. Nudelman. 2007

There is no lack of reliable sources available for this article. Will Beback talk 23:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting that the first book you listed as reliable is a book by Edwin O Palmer. It is a self-published book. It also had a very limited printing and would be almost impossible for most people to verify. I am posting a link to the Title page and also a comment made by the author. He states that many errors have been made in the book as much of the information is just his memory about what he heard from others. He was not at the events. [9]Additionally attached is a letter by H J Whitley. He had concerns about Palmer's book when he was alive and hoped that he could convince Palmer to correct his misinformation. [10]. I also contacted the publisher of "Early Hollywood" by Arcadia Publishing. I asked them to correct their mistakes but they said to contact the author as they did not monitor what was printed. They just published what the author wrote. I attempted to contact Robert Nudelman but he had passed away. My daughter talked to Bruce Torrence who told her his information had come from Palmer's book. That is why his information is also incorrect. I have not had time yet to contact the others but I am fairly confident that Palmer's book was their source of information regarding early Hollywood. Can you give me any reliable sources that comply to Wikipedia guidelines. I am going to repost the diary information you deleted as it is part of a published book and historical magazine published by the University of Pacific, The California Historian. Tate Publishing is a traditional publisher. Please do not use Google Blogs to give misinformation. The Publisher has stated this information on Wikipedia and you should have not deleted that information. Why are you so confrontational? What is your true agenda in this matter?Whithj (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We may not cite an unpublished diary, even if portions of it have been published. We may cite those published portions, referencing the book in which they were published. I will continue to remove any citations to the unpublished diary or the unpublished papers.

I have not deleted any postings from this page. The marketing director of Tate is welcome to give her view of that company, but it contradicts those of outsiders. We should probably refer this to the reliable sources noticeboard to get more community input.

The only agenda I have here is to enforce Wikipedia policies. I am not "Bruce", and I don't care whether it was Wilcox or Whitley who named Hollywood. On the other hand, I get the feeling that it matters a great deal to you. Agenda-driven editing on Wikipedia is a serious problem, and if you continue to use Wikipedia to promote your ancestor's achievements, beyond what can be supported by reliable sources, then that may require administrative action. Please be more cooperative. Will Beback talk 20:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Tate Publishing: The Father of Hollywood. Will Beback talk 21:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to not like self published books maybe you should delete Gregory Paul Williams book. It was self-published. It is in the biography section at the bottom of the page.Whithj (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. On closer inspection there was even a third self-published book there. Since the two bibliography sections seem to be a target for book spam, I've deleted them both. Will Beback talk 00:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not restore non-compliant sources. In addition to the previously discussed sources, this one is also inappropriate: Al Christie. The main reason is that is is mostly sourced to Wikipedia itself. One part, the part being used here apparently, is sourced to "hollywoodusa.co.uk". If we follow that link, we find the material there is sourced to Wikipedia as well.[11] In other words, it is a circular reference. WP:Circular. Will Beback talk 01:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Later discussion

Now that we're six years on from this discussion, I think it's time to revisit and modify how the page represents how Hollywood acquired its name.

The second paragraph within "Early history and development" currently begins with "[a]ccording to the diary of H. J. Whitley, known as the "Father of Hollywood", on his honeymoon in 1886 he stood at the top of the hill looking out over the valley." Note 7 points not to H.J. Whitley's diary, but to something said to have come from an 1886 entry in the diary of his wife, Margaret V. Whitley. Gaelyn Whitley Keith, author of The Father of Hollywood (discussion above), and owner of the site at which that image given in Note 7 sits, has told me that "[t]he page was hand written by my great-grandmother, Margaret Virginia Whitley. It is an account of her honeymoon adventure with my great-grandfather H J Whitley. I do not have an exact date of the writing but the event occurred in 1886." The image at Note 7, then, seems not to be a diary entry and cannot be documented (at least as of this writing) as contemporaneous with the anecdote told in this piece of writing. Getting an exact date and context for this piece of writing would be helpful; in the absence of such, the evidence for the Whitley anecdote is quite questionable in terms of documentation. I've been unable to find a contemporaneous or roughly contemporaneous telling of the Whitley anecdote in historical newspaper databases. Although its absence from, say, Southern California newspapers in the first half of the 20th-century isn't exactly damning, it is curious and perhaps suggests that the Whitley explanation for the naming of Hollywood existed solely as a family anecdote.

I don't know how Hollywood, California acquired its name and I have no horse in this race. I do understand the Whitley family's desire to preserve a place for H.J. and Margaret Whitley in the founding of Hollywood, but I regret to say that evidence that this anecdote reflects the inspiration for the naming of Hollywood is lacking. Consequently, the Whitley explanation should receive far less prominence on this page or it should be removed.

Regardless of who came up with the California toponym, I believe the earliest appearance of "Hollywood" with respect to the subdivision near Cahuenga Pass is February 2, 1887. The map is said to have been filed on February 1, 1887. There are slightly later appearances in Los Angeles-area newspapers that link the toponym to H.H. Wilcox.

If no strenuous objections crop up I'll likely amend the section on the naming of Hollywood within the next 30 days. B Taylor-Blake (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Anything that could be done to improve this article would be welcomed by everybody. If your changes would be extensive, I would suggest you put them in a Sandbox, which you could create as an adjunct to your page, and we could look it over there. Otherwise, you might write an article for a WP:Reliable news or feature site, have it vetted and published, and then we could use that article as a source for Wikipedia. The important thing would be for an outside editor to deem it acceptable, so WP could link to it. Just my opinion, and I hope to hear from you soon. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this and for creating two discussion sections for this topic. I doubt any changes I'll make will be extensive at all (in part because so little is known about how the toponym came to be), but I wanted to lay out now my reasons for thinking changes needed to be made. I appreciate the feedback I've gotten from you. B Taylor-Blake (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing phrase "relatively low-income" from lede section

I am removing the phrase "relatively low income" from the lede. There was a discussion over at the West Hills, Los Angeles talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:West_Hills,_Los_Angeles#Possible_canvassing) regarding terms like this.

The RFC (Request for Comment) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Cities/Archive_19#Request_for_comment was closed by Robert McClenon as rough consensus against the inclusion of terms such as "affluent" or "poor" in ledes to articles on cities and towns in general. The scope was not just "all Los Angeles neighborhoods", but all settlement articles. And it wasn't restricted to the word "affluent", but all similar terms. Phatblackmama (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hollywood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612050102/http://hollywoodchamber.net/index.php?page=10 to http://www.hollywoodchamber.net/index.php?page=10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Hollywood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hollywood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"H'w'd" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect H'w'd. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2#H'w'd until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesome Hwyh 20:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Alternative name derivation

Toyon is a prominent component of the coastal sage scrub plant community, and is a part of drought-adapted chaparral and mixed oak woodland habitats. It is also known by the common names Christmas berry and California holly. Accordingly, "the abundance of this species in the hills above Los Angeles... gave rise to the name Hollywood."^[1]

Kortoso (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"'Tis the season when the rich green crown of the toyon bush is aglow with a mass of red berries. At a time when most members of the chaparral community have donned their winter gray, the toyon--also known variously as Christmas berry or California holly--is the most festive of flora.

"This holly-day hike to Mt. Hollywood, highest peak in Griffith Park, offers fine clear-day views of the Los Angeles basin, framed by the Christmas berry bushes growing alongside the trail. It's believed that masses of this California native shrub growing on the hills above Hollywood gave the community its name.

"Botanically speaking, the 6-to-25-foot high evergreen shrub is in no sense a holly, but its timely appearance is a delight to the holiday hiker and something to point to when friends from colder climes claim that "there's nothing Christmasy about Southern California." (It might seem inviting to deck your halls with boughs of California holly, but collection is strictly forbidden by state law.)"[12]

Kortoso (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Given that there were already half a dozen places in the USA called Hollywood by the time of the founding of Hollywood, Ca., I think the story about the Chinese man is probably apocryphal. For that matter, there have been places in Ireland and England called Hollywood for centuries.Ordinary Person (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The history of Hollywood section needs better sourcing. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Article with another origin https://www.irishcentral.com/travel/hollywood-name-ireland where named by an immigrant from Hollywood,_County_Wicklow. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 14:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

References

^ Rundel, Philip W; Gustafson, Robert (2005). Introduction to the Plant Life of Southern California: Coast to Foothills. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. p. 103. ISBN 0-520-24199-1.

"Tinseltown" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Tinseltown. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 31#Tinseltown until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Cnilep (talk) 10:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 9 March 2022

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.

Moved as proposed as to "Hollywood"; as to the base page name, there is a clear consensus to disambiguate at this time. Although discussion centered on the neighborhood and the film industry, I note in passing that the disambiguation page has over 100 other meanings of "Hollywood". BD2412 T 18:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hollywood → Hollywood, Los Angeles
Cinema of the United States → Hollywood

– I believe the current names for these two articles has a few issues: it leaves Cinema of the United States at not its WP:COMMONNAME, leaves Hollywood not WP:CONSISTENT with all the other Neighborhoods of Los Angeles, and does not give the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term "Hollywood" to the movie industry. "Hollywood actor/actress", History of Hollywood, Hollywood blacklist etc., references to "Hollywood" in reliable sources and on Wikipedia are rarely referring to the actual physical location versus the industry named after it. The current situation leaves lots of room for erroneous links in articles to a specific (though still notable and important) Los Angeles neighborhood, many of which can be seen when looking at the list. Examples of reliable sources using "Hollywood" without clarifying they mean the industry not the place: [13][14][15][16][17]. I had difficulty finding articles that use "Hollywood" to refer to the place without clarifying they mean the neighborhood outside of local reports regarding construction and crime, since so much of a google search is about the movie industry. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

How about having the disambiguation page at the basename? (which would be support 1st, oppose 2nd). One could argue that there's no primary topic between [Hollywood referring to the actual place in LA] vs. [Hollywood as a synonym for the cinema of the United States], so in that case, moving the disambiguation page Hollywood (disambiguation) to the basename of "Hollywood" might make sense. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I considered that as a possibility, but I don't think it ultimately addresses 2 of the 3 major issues with how it currently is, assuming that Hollywood would still need to move to Hollywood, Los Angeles. Most importantly, I see the industry as the clear primary topic from shear volume of discussion of cinema in the United States (entire fields of study are based around it, magazines named after, etc.) versus the neighborhood that derives almost all of its notability from the metonymic industry .--Cerebral726 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Weak support 1st, oppose 2nd per Paintspot, while this or the Cinema may qualify as a broad-concept article Hollywood (miniseries) gets 40,829 views compared with 52,580[[18]] for this one and there are a lot of other uses so the DAB may be the best option. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Support first, oppose second. Cinema of the United States is a clearer name for an article than Hollywood. Hollywood is commonly used to refer to both American cinema and the neighborhood in Los Angeles. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 16:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Support first, oppose second, and move disambig to primary for now - Contrary to the hype, the Hollywood, CA-based film industry is not the totality of cinema in the US. I would support the creation of a proper "Hollywood (film industry)" article detailing the history and current impact of the industry centered in that city. Cinema of the United States needs to be all-inclusive and not use "Hollywood" as a synonym so much. -- Netoholic @ 17:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Neutral first, oppose second. The above comments have sufficiently explained why the second move is a bad idea. I'm neutral on making Hollywood a DAB. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand the proposal. If it means that "Hollywood" should lead the reader to "Cinema of the United States," I FAVOR that (because there are so many articles where that is, or SHOULD BE, the case). Thus editors writing "Hollywood" to mean the neighborhood, well, they must then be sure to type [Hollywood|Hollywood, Los Angeles] as they write or rewrite the article, and there might be a section added to WP:Manual of Style declaring that this must be done. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Support first per above. Peter Ormond 💬 06:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment The waters are unclear. "Hollywood" is both a residential neighborhood in Los Angeles and short-hand for the film industry produced in the city. The term "Hollywood" is most commonly used in sources to denote the LA-based film industry, even in an indirect sense, e.g. to films produced and/or shot elsewhere but financed by LA-based companies. It has also come to signify the American established film industry in general. So, first of all, "Hollywood" is not synonymous with U.S. cinema. The very definition of "Cinema of the United States" is erroneous, which explains why it's so inadequately supported by sources in the article. It would actually be an act of nomenclatural hybris to identify American cinema with "Hollywood." Here, a cursory examination of sources brings up American cinema as the overwhelmingly preferred term for cinema produced, made, financed or otherwise created in the States. Therefore, we should start by renaming per the relevant policy the wretchedly titled "Cinema of the United States" and move on to clarify what "Hollywood" means in the context of cinema. -The Gnome (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)m
Support “Hollywood” as a Disambiguation page, as it can mean "Hollywood (film industry)"- a euphemism for the entertainment industry, or "Hollywood, Los Angeles" - a neighborhood in Los Angeles, or "Hollywood, Florida " - a city in south Florida. Phatblackmama (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Support first, move disambiguation page to base title. Plantdrew (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2022 (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.

[1] Rundel, Philip W; Gustafson, Robert (2005). Introduction to the Plant Life of Southern California: Coast to Foothills. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. p. 103. ISBN 0-520-24199-1.

[1]