Talk:Los Angeles/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Why the revert?
@Castncoot: could you please explain why you reverted my edit?—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- When you make such significant changes to an established lede, including removing information or rounding estimates, you should get consensus first. Castncoot (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Castncoot: okay, so let's discuss. I think rounding the population estimates is a no-brainer; 3,976,322 is far harder to process than 3.98 million, with no benefit to the reader even if the estimates were that precise. Why do you object to that rounding?
- I see more benefit in identifying the year of the estimate, but again, adding the year makes the text much more dense, and ledes should strive for accessibility. A reader would naturally expect us to use the most recent available estimate (I like "as of" statements too, but for something that's likely to be updated frequently, I don't think they're necessary), and the citations will make it easy to identify the year.
- Other than that, I didn't remove any information; I only reorganized and reworded. Thoughts? Please ping me when you reply so I get notified.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Neil P. Quinn: "Far harder to process"? Please, this is an encyclopedia, not a storybook. Castncoot (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Mr. or Ms. Quinn is correct. We should strive for accuracy and simplicity, both. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Neil P. Quinn: "Far harder to process"? Please, this is an encyclopedia, not a storybook. Castncoot (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Historical affiliations
I removed the box because L.A. was never "affiliated" with any of these places (wrong verb, in other words). Also the so-called "California Republic" had nothing to do with L.A. A tip of the hat, though, to the editor who put the box together! Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Skyline
You do know that the skyline is actually a photo of Denver, right? http://paperlief.com/usa/denver-skyline-mountains-wallpaper-1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.137.40.230 (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi User:63.137.40.230. No, it isn't. The tall circular building is the U.S. Bank Tower. Slightly to the left is City National Bank, which has no location in Denver. In the foreground, at the lower right, you can make out Staples Center. A bit to the left of that, you can make out the sign on Hotel Figueroa. The photo that claims it's Denver appears to be the one that's mislabeled.
- That said, I am having a little trouble working out exactly what peaks those are in the background. It seems to be a generally easterly view towards the San Gabriel Mountains. --Trovatore (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- It's the L.A. City Hall, all right. I'm not sure about the mountains. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Non-L.A. references
I was reverted at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Los_Angeles&curid=18110&diff=842837074&oldid=842814633. The article should be about the City of Los Angeles. Bringing in references to anything within other cities defeats the purpose of the article and simply makes it longer. WP:BRD. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Like most articles about major cities, it, at least in part, includes material about the wider metro area where it affects the city. That includes transportation (an article about Cincinnati that doesn't include the airport just because it is across the river in northern Kentucky would be incomplete. Likewise, an article on New York City that doesn't include the Giants and Jets because they play in a suburb across the river would be lacking. Which is why those articles include thatt info. At least here the towns are adjacent, not across the river. oknazevad (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- I certainly disagree with your contention. The article is about the city, not about the metropolis. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with BAW. You are not discussing a sports team that is epimonious with the city. You are not discussing the city's airport. You are discussing specific locations in specific settlements that are not Los Angeles. You've provided no secondary sources at all. You've added no context (how could you....there are no sources!) to show why this is important to an understanding of the city. Not much of a sports fan, but I can tell you for certain....at least the Rose Bowl has very little popular association with Los Angeles. Most every US person knows it's in Pasadena, even if they have no idea of the physical relationship of Pasadena and LA. John from Idegon (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I don't care very much one way or the other, but I could see a case for pointing out the home venues of LA teams. The Rose Bowl is the home field of the UCLA (football) Bruins. However, this would be better contextualized if the text specifically named the LA teams that play in those venues.
- As to whether it's worth the space, I have no strong opinion. --Trovatore (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with BAW. You are not discussing a sports team that is epimonious with the city. You are not discussing the city's airport. You are discussing specific locations in specific settlements that are not Los Angeles. You've provided no secondary sources at all. You've added no context (how could you....there are no sources!) to show why this is important to an understanding of the city. Not much of a sports fan, but I can tell you for certain....at least the Rose Bowl has very little popular association with Los Angeles. Most every US person knows it's in Pasadena, even if they have no idea of the physical relationship of Pasadena and LA. John from Idegon (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- On the larger issue of whether this article should be limited strictly to what is within the borders of the City of Los Angeles as defined politically, I think I lean towards Oknazevad's position. The article is not about the political entity per se, so being too rigid about the political borders doesn't make sense. To take an extreme example, there's an enclave of unincorporated LA County land between Westwood and Brentwood — does it make sense to exclude that from this article? --Trovatore (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- In reply to your specific example, yes it should. However in the top level article, it shouldn't come up. We don't cover the city of Hamtramck, Michigan in with Detroit, yet it is exactly the same situation. There is an article on Metropolitan Los Angeles. Stuff that goes beyond the legal boundaries of the city should be covered there. John from Idegon (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Well, it's not exactly the same situation, as Hamtrack is apparently a city, whereas I'm talking about unincorporated county land. But I'm not sure I agree with your position. Why exactly should this article be limited to the political boundaries of the city? --Trovatore (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- (Or maybe I didn't understand what you said. You said "yes it should". Yes what should what? I don't want to misinterpret you.) --Trovatore (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Let me explain. If there is a reason why the inhold is there and it is significant enough to appear in this top level article, that should be discussed. The whole thing is somewhat a nonsequiter as a small inhold is of little significance, and the subject really shouldn't come up in a top level article. My point was and remains, there exists already an article to cover the metro area. Where do we draw the line? Since it's already drawn, I'd suggest the city line should work just fine. It's pretty definite. Either something is, or isn't in Los Angeles. That is completely definable. Whether it is significant to the city, not so much. Sacramento is pretty significant to LA. Should we discuss it in this article? The bottom line is, the crap that was removed was completely unsourced, and was not written with any context (again, because without sources, where is the context going to come from?). Why SHOULD it be in the article. WP:BURDEN says it is up to the editor wanting the content in to show it should be and sway the opposition, not the other way around. Provide sources please. John from Idegon (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't call it crap, only a difference of opinion, but to get to the nut of the situation, the title of the article is "Los Angeles," so everything in it should be about L.A. There are other ways to refer readers to places contiguous to or surrounded by the city itself. There's a "See also" section, for example, a portion of which could be labeled "Places surrounded by or adjacent to the city." Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Let me explain. If there is a reason why the inhold is there and it is significant enough to appear in this top level article, that should be discussed. The whole thing is somewhat a nonsequiter as a small inhold is of little significance, and the subject really shouldn't come up in a top level article. My point was and remains, there exists already an article to cover the metro area. Where do we draw the line? Since it's already drawn, I'd suggest the city line should work just fine. It's pretty definite. Either something is, or isn't in Los Angeles. That is completely definable. Whether it is significant to the city, not so much. Sacramento is pretty significant to LA. Should we discuss it in this article? The bottom line is, the crap that was removed was completely unsourced, and was not written with any context (again, because without sources, where is the context going to come from?). Why SHOULD it be in the article. WP:BURDEN says it is up to the editor wanting the content in to show it should be and sway the opposition, not the other way around. Provide sources please. John from Idegon (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- In reply to your specific example, yes it should. However in the top level article, it shouldn't come up. We don't cover the city of Hamtramck, Michigan in with Detroit, yet it is exactly the same situation. There is an article on Metropolitan Los Angeles. Stuff that goes beyond the legal boundaries of the city should be covered there. John from Idegon (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Megacity
Keeping with consistency, if NYC has "Megacity" written on the top of the infobox, shouldn't LA? Its metropolitan population is well above 10 million. I'll change it if nobody objects.PerhapsXarb (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- Honestly I'd rather remove it from New York. "Megacity" has a jargony, made-up quality to it, not to mention a dystopian overtone. But I'm not very interested in editing New York City so I'd prefer to leave that call to editors there. --Trovatore (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- I would ask all editors to refrain from re-adding "megacity" without coming to a consensus here on the talk page. -Trovatore (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. It should come off New York City as well, but I'm certain I'd be immediately reverted if I tried. It was all I could do to keep it from being labelled a "metacity". Station1 (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Climate data - problem
I have doubts about the coastal climate data: according to the data, the climate (1981-2010) is noticeably cooler than 10 years earlier (1971-2000) and even 1961-1990. Climatic anomaly or errors in NOAA data? See:
| Climate data for Los Angeles: LAX, at the coast (1961-1990) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
| Mean daily maximum °F (°C) | 65.7 (18.7) |
65.8 (18.8) |
65.5 (18.6) |
67.5 (19.7) |
69.1 (20.6) |
72.0 (22.2) |
75.4 (24.1) |
76.6 (24.8) |
76.6 (24.8) |
74.5 (23.6) |
70.3 (21.3) |
65.8 (18.8) |
70.3 (21.3) |
| Daily mean °F (°C) | 56.8 (13.8) |
57.6 (14.2) |
57.9 (14.4) |
59.9 (15.5) |
62.8 (17.1) |
65.7 (18.7) |
69.1 (20.6) |
70.5 (21.4) |
70.0 (21.1) |
66.7 (19.3) |
61.5 (16.4) |
56.8 (13.8) |
63.0 (17.2) |
| Mean daily minimum °F (°C) | 47.8 (8.8) |
49.3 (9.6) |
50.5 (10.3) |
51.1 (10.6) |
56.3 (13.5) |
59.5 (15.3) |
62.8 (17.1) |
64.2 (17.9) |
63.1 (17.3) |
59.2 (15.1) |
52.9 (11.6) |
47.8 (8.8) |
55.6 (13.1) |
| Source: NOAA [1] | |||||||||||||
| Climate data for Los Angeles: LAX, at the coast (1971-2000) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
| Mean daily maximum °F (°C) | 65.6 (18.7) |
65.8 (18.8) |
65.3 (18.5) |
68.0 (20.0) |
69.3 (20.7) |
72.6 (22.6) |
75.3 (24.1) |
76.8 (24.9) |
76.5 (24.7) |
74.3 (23.5) |
70.4 (21.3) |
66.7 (19.3) |
70.6 (21.4) |
| Daily mean °F (°C) | 57.1 (13.9) |
58.0 (14.4) |
58.3 (14.6) |
60.8 (16.0) |
63.1 (17.3) |
66.4 (19.1) |
69.3 (20.7) |
70.7 (21.5) |
70.1 (21.2) |
66.9 (19.4) |
61.6 (16.4) |
57.6 (14.2) |
63.3 (17.4) |
| Mean daily minimum °F (°C) | 48.6 (9.2) |
50.1 (10.1) |
51.3 (10.7) |
53.6 (12.0) |
56.9 (13.8) |
60.1 (15.6) |
63.3 (17.4) |
64.5 (18.1) |
63.6 (17.6) |
59.4 (15.2) |
52.7 (11.5) |
48.5 (9.2) |
56.1 (13.4) |
| Source: NOAA [2] | |||||||||||||
| Climate data for Los Angeles: LAX, at the coast (1981-2010) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
| Mean daily maximum °F (°C) | 64.6 (18.1) |
64.3 (17.9) |
64.4 (18.0) |
66.4 (19.1) |
68.1 (20.1) |
70.6 (21.4) |
73.8 (23.2) |
74.9 (23.8) |
74.6 (23.7) |
72.5 (22.5) |
68.9 (20.5) |
64.6 (18.1) |
69.0 (20.6) |
| Daily mean °F (°C) | 56.7 (13.7) |
57.1 (13.9) |
58.0 (14.4) |
60.1 (15.6) |
62.7 (17.1) |
65.5 (18.6) |
68.8 (20.4) |
69.6 (20.9) |
68.9 (20.5) |
65.9 (18.8) |
61.1 (16.2) |
56.6 (13.7) |
62.6 (17.0) |
| Mean daily minimum °F (°C) | 48.8 (9.3) |
50.0 (10.0) |
51.7 (10.9) |
53.8 (12.1) |
57.3 (14.1) |
60.5 (15.8) |
63.7 (17.6) |
64.3 (17.9) |
63.2 (17.3) |
59.3 (15.2) |
53.2 (11.8) |
48.7 (9.3) |
56.2 (13.4) |
| Source: NOAA [3][4] | |||||||||||||
Also, the same problem is in San Diego, see:
| Climate data for San Diego: San Diego Int'l Airport (1971–2000) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
| Mean daily maximum °F (°C) | 65.8 (18.8) |
66.3 (19.1) |
66.3 (19.1) |
68.7 (20.4) |
69.3 (20.7) |
72.2 (22.3) |
75.8 (24.3) |
77.5 (25.3) |
77.0 (25.0) |
74.0 (23.3) |
69.9 (21.1) |
66.3 (19.1) |
70.8 (21.5) |
| Mean daily minimum °F (°C) | 49.7 (9.8) |
51.5 (10.8) |
53.6 (12.0) |
56.4 (13.6) |
59.8 (15.4) |
62.6 (17.0) |
65.9 (18.8) |
67.4 (19.7) |
66.1 (18.9) |
61.2 (16.2) |
53.6 (12.0) |
48.9 (9.4) |
58.1 (14.5) |
| Source: NOAA [5] | |||||||||||||
| Climate data for San Diego: San Diego Int'l Airport (1981–2010) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Month | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Year |
| Mean daily maximum °F (°C) | 65.1 (18.4) |
65.0 (18.3) |
65.6 (18.7) |
67.5 (19.7) |
68.5 (20.3) |
70.8 (21.6) |
74.6 (23.7) |
76.4 (24.7) |
75.9 (24.4) |
72.8 (22.7) |
69.0 (20.6) |
64.7 (18.2) |
69.7 (20.9) |
| Mean daily minimum °F (°C) | 49.0 (9.4) |
50.7 (10.4) |
53.2 (11.8) |
55.9 (13.3) |
59.4 (15.2) |
62.0 (16.7) |
65.4 (18.6) |
66.7 (19.3) |
65.2 (18.4) |
60.6 (15.9) |
53.6 (12.0) |
48.4 (9.1) |
57.5 (14.2) |
| Source: NOAA [6] | |||||||||||||
Differentials in August over 1.1°C (2°F) in 10 years and against the warming of the climate - the temperature falls? Can anyone explain this? Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 22:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting this. I don't think anybody who follows this Talk page has anything to do with this chart. It seems to be put here by aficionados of weather charts. But then, I am not really familiar with these things, even though I have BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Largest in California, largest in Western United States
So while I agree that California should be prominently mentioned, the text
- and the largest and most populous city in both the state of California and the Western United States
is really not acceptable. Of course if it is largest in the Western US, it is also the largest in California. Splitting the two "largests", with an extra sentence in between them, makes this less objectionable. --Trovatore (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- More importantly, the lead sentence should establish that LA is in California, separately from the broader idea of being the most populous city in the state or region. That's why I separated out the sentence and why it's better to have two sentences. oknazevad (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- A possible solution came to me: How about ...the largest and most populous city in California and, indeed, in the Western United States? With the word indeed, it no longer looks like an insulting semi-tautology. I'm not sure it's actually necessary to call out the Western United States (a region with no precise definition, though the statement would be true under any available definition), but if we do, this seems like a reasonable way to do it. --Trovatore (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Just as long as California is directly named. And linked. Despite what some will likely claim about well-known geographic features, it is not overlinking to link a US city to the state that contains said city. It falls under the relevance clause as cities are chartered by states and dependent on them legally and financially. oknazevad (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- I restored the WP link(s) in lead paragraph. I do understand the concern about "overlinking", but any superlative must have either a WP article link ("Largest Cities in...") or a reference (U.S. Census site, etc.) appended at end of sentence. We can't trot out statistical superlatives without a source. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Just as long as California is directly named. And linked. Despite what some will likely claim about well-known geographic features, it is not overlinking to link a US city to the state that contains said city. It falls under the relevance clause as cities are chartered by states and dependent on them legally and financially. oknazevad (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- A possible solution came to me: How about ...the largest and most populous city in California and, indeed, in the Western United States? With the word indeed, it no longer looks like an insulting semi-tautology. I'm not sure it's actually necessary to call out the Western United States (a region with no precise definition, though the statement would be true under any available definition), but if we do, this seems like a reasonable way to do it. --Trovatore (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Nicknames
I have removed from the infobox nicknames that nobody actually uses. Yes, I realize they are backed by sources, but I challenge anyone to find any actual usage of those terms "in the wild", as it were. See the following Google searches:
- [7] "Double Dubuque" only comes up with results where the nickname is described as being in existence.
- [8] "Angeltown" appears to be the "official song of Los Angeles", but not necessarily a nickname
I was also skeptical about "Big Orange" but apparently it's actually a thing as per KCET, although Variety uses it for Orange County, and Los Angeles Magazine says it's something New Yorkers call LA. —howcheng {chat} 03:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Howcheng: "Dubuque Dubuque" clearly is used as a nickname for Los Angeles. Here are some examples:
- "Double Dubuque" appears to be in use as much as "The Entertainment Capital of the World" per Google Trends. Also, the nickname has a rich and interesting history.
- Sqrlntz1999 (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Sqrlntz1999: I'm fine with taking out "Entertainment Capital of the World" as well. I'm still not sold on "Big Orange" either. I think perhaps what we need is a new section in the article called "Nicknames", where we can give more complete details about all of them, but leave the commonly used ones in the infobox: LA, City of Angels, Tinseltown, La-la Land. Does that sound like a good solution? —howcheng {chat} 17:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Howcheng: Like Chicago and List_of_nicknames_for_Chicago? Or New York City and List_of_nicknames_of_New_York_City? Sqrlntz1999 (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Sqrlntz1999: That works. —howcheng {chat} 18:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Howcheng: In that case, how about leaving "Double Dubuque" in the nicknames infobox until such time as you have created the new nicknames article that you have proposed? It seems like this is taking quite a long time. Sqrlntz1999 (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Sqrlntz1999: Oh, I didn't realize that task was assigned to me. —howcheng {chat} 17:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
-
- @Sqrlntz1999: Yes, but it was not an offer to write the article. I will see when I have time. —howcheng {chat} 17:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Howcheng: In that case, how about leaving "Double Dubuque" in the nicknames infobox until such time as you have created the new nicknames article that you have proposed? It seems like this is taking quite a long time. Sqrlntz1999 (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Sqrlntz1999: That works. —howcheng {chat} 18:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Howcheng: Like Chicago and List_of_nicknames_for_Chicago? Or New York City and List_of_nicknames_of_New_York_City? Sqrlntz1999 (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Sqrlntz1999: I'm fine with taking out "Entertainment Capital of the World" as well. I'm still not sold on "Big Orange" either. I think perhaps what we need is a new section in the article called "Nicknames", where we can give more complete details about all of them, but leave the commonly used ones in the infobox: LA, City of Angels, Tinseltown, La-la Land. Does that sound like a good solution? —howcheng {chat} 17:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- "The Big Orange", "La-la-land", "Tinseltown" - to remove. Only two nicknames is usually uses: "L.A." and "City of Angels". We can not write to the infobox terms/nickname because "someone wrote that". Only two: "L.A." and "City of Angels" are commonly used and there is a consensus for them. Rest - to remove from infobox. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 21:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Subtropical-man: In this case, change the infobox title to "two nicknames is usually uses," and be sure to cite your sources since "We can not write to the infobox terms/nickname because 'someone wrote that'." Sqrlntz1999 (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Interactive map
Thu current interactive map doesn’t show the city limits of LA but of its metropolitan area; it needs to be fixed. IWI (chat) 19:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Working on that!TheCaliBook (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Did you find a solution, TheCaliBook? IWI (chat) 16:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- I sadly didn't, therefore what was before the interactive map should be placed.--TheCaliBook (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Did you find a solution, TheCaliBook? IWI (chat) 16:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)