Jump to content

Talk:Los Angeles/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Los Angeles name in infobox

I find a weak consensus in favor of Los Angeles, California in the infobox. This was a long and thorough discussion, and both sides cited appropriate guidelines and precedent to support their positions. The actual !vote outcome was 5 for "Los Angeles, California" vs. 4 for "Los Angeles", not enough for consensus. What led me to find a weak consensus here was the fact that two discussants changed their opinions from "Los Angeles" to "neutral" as a result of the discussion, suggesting that the "Los Angeles, California" arguments were more persuasive. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Closing}} --DannyS712 (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
recycle Reopened - I may have jumped the gun on this a bit. Sorry. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


Version with simply "Los Angeles" existed from 2 October, the version can be considered as stable. Consensus must to be to restore old version of "Los Angeles, California", however I decided to create a thread for discussion because user:Castncoot two times reverted it [1][2]. So, which version do you prefer to infobox? "Los Angeles" or "Los Angeles, California"? Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 13:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Los Angeles. That's the name of the article, and it's a bit odd to use a longer name in the infobox than in the article, given that infoboxes are supposed to be quick summaries. But I can't say I care that much; if others prefer the longer name, that's OK too. --Trovatore (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:INFOBOXGEO "Infoboxes for geographical items (e.g. cities and countries) should generally be headed with the article title...."--Moxy (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
So, "Los Angeles" name to infobox per WP:INFOBOXGEO. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 12:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:USPLACE governs this way. Look at Denver or Atlanta for similar examples. It should be Los Angeles, California. ≈IWI (chat) 16:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
That link seems to be mainly about the title; I don't see that it says anything specific about the infobox. Are you arguing to move the article to Los Angeles, California? That isn't going to fly (and note that the guide you cited specifically says we don't need the state if it's listed in the AP Stylebook as not needing the state, which I assume applies here, though I haven't checked). --Trovatore (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
According to the consensus, "Los Angeles" is name of article. Also, according to the WP:INFOBOXGEO and even Wikipedia:Common sense, name in infobox should be the same than name of article. The lack of any reliable argument for different names in infobox and article name. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 21:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Trovatore: But all other articles in that AP stylebook (Denver, Atlanta) do this so... IWI (chat) 00:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

So maybe they should be changed? I don't know. I don't care that much which version gets picked for this article, and still less about the others. But it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me to use the state name in the infobox, when we're not using it in the title. --Trovatore (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I have fully-protected the article for 12 hours because of edit warring - and to make sure no-one gets blocked for it. It looks to me as if you have almost reached agreement here. If not, continue to discuss; do not edit war your own versions into the article, but wait for WP:consensus. Remember that consensus does not have to be unanimous as long as it is reasonably clear from the discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Like I said, all other cities in that stylebook use the City, State format in the infobox (Denver, Atlanta). IWI (chat) 00:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
You may have said it, but that doesn't make it true. Stand down here, you are out of your element. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Binksternet: It’s not true? Go to every single one and see, seriously. I haven’t lied. I’m not out of my element and I’m not sure why you would say that. Content not contributor. IWI (chat)
At Binksternet: Can you please just clarify your comment above, "Stand down here, you are out of your element" to ImprovedWikiImprovment? Castncoot (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Castncoot: Guarantee he’s seen me at ANI, where there’s an agenda against me, simply because I’m not as experienced, and therefore mustn’t have a clue. IWI (chat) 06:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
No, not ANI. I just thought the answer to the question here was so utterly obvious, but apparently it's not. Apologies all 'round. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Los Angeles, California. As the infobox header has been for a much longer period than just Los Angeles. I believe it was just changed to Los Angeles relatively recently. Los Angeles, Texas also comes to mind immediately. Castncoot (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
    • The move appears to have happened in 2008 — see this link. I'm not sure why that should matter, though. Presumably moving the article should also result in changing the infobox, assuming there was one at the time.
      As for Los Angeles, Texas, I'm also unsure what your point is. This article is obviously the primary topic for the term Los Angeles, and I don't know why that wouldn't also apply to the infobox. --Trovatore (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
    • To save anyone else from having to search for it, here is the version of the article at the time of the move. For whatever it's worth (not much, I think) the infobox just says "Los Angeles". --Trovatore (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Los Angeles, California for infobox makes sense to me editorially, indeed I think we should do this for all American cities (and, of course, we do for most all). US PLACE is fine for titles (let's be honest, if we were going strictly common-name here, it would be L.A.). But we are not discussing title, we are discussing infobox, and the reason INFOBOXGEO does not demand an outcome is plain, it only speaks in generalities about many different things, rivers and mountains and, etc, etc. American cities have a unique legal and physical relationship with U.S. States, American cities are creations and subjects of states, and states are the sum of their parts, and yes the infobox is meant to inform the reader, and moreover it is less repetitive, when you have Title: Los Angeles Info: Los Angeles, California. In short, to understand Los Angeles, you do have to quickly understand it's a California city and they are inextricably bound together. So, sure editors have freedom in articles, and while I agree with Trovatore, it's not a huge issue, this is my editorial opinion. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Hmm, that's a reasonable argument. (As an aside, though, I don't think the reason for giving the titles of articles on the largest US cities "bare" is so much about COMMONNAME as it is about parity with other globally known cities.) --Trovatore (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Look at the Chicago page. The infobox header states Chicago, Ilinois. Now L.A. has somewhat over a million more people than Chicago, and both cities are in the same general order of magnitude. Are we going to change every Wikipedia:USCITIES article to force the infobox header to match the article title? Castncoot (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I really don't care whether this page is consistent with Chicago or not. Let's try to get it right at this article, then anyone interested can take it up at other city articles. --Trovatore (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
          • My point being that many if not most big U.S. city articles don't force the infobox header to match the title. What then makes Los Angeles unique in this regard? Castncoot (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
            • My point is that what the other articles do is completely irrelevant. Please argue directly about which version is better, on the merits. Not what other articles do and not the history of the article. --Trovatore (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
              • There is that little issue about Wikipedia speaking with one voice, so to simply dismiss the precedent that most other articles have established is not being a responsible steward for the project. What then makes Los Angeles unique in this regard? Castncoot (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
                • "Wikipedia speaking with one voice"? Where is that written? I don't see any need to decide what makes Los Angeles different. We just need to decide what's best for this article. Then, if the same reasons apply to articles for other cities, those who are interested can take it up at those articles, or even at WP:INFOBOXGEO if they're so inclined. --Trovatore (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
              • Also, the upside to having "California" included in the infobox header embodies L.A.'s inextricable linkage to California, as User:Alanscottwalker stated above. Can you think of any downside to including "California" in the infobox, Trovatore? Castncoot (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
                • Well, it's different from the title of the article. That's a possible within-article-consistency issue (within-article consistency is way more important than between-article consistency). But Alanscottwalker's argument is substantial. It moved me from "leaning Los Angeles" to "on the fence". --Trovatore (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I should point out that guidelines are guidelines so exceptions are permitted by default; they are not to die by. Guideline arguments are no more compelling than OSE arguments. IWI (chat) 09:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Not having California there almost suggests the city’s size makes it worthy of a lesser connection to the state, which isn’t correct. The city is just as bound to California as say, Bakersfield, so why should it be treated differently? IWI (chat) 09:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, like many of the arguments we've seen here, this one sounds as much like an argument to move the actual article, which I don't think is going to happen. I don't think there's a lot of appetite to relitigate that discussion. (I would be against it, as long as say Venice is at that title; otherwise it seems to put US cities in a subordinate status relative to other cities of world importance.)
Thinking about it, actually I wonder why we need the state in the infobox for cities that already have the state in the title. Why shouldn't the infobox for Fresno, California just say "Fresno"? The word "California" is in big type right up at the top of the page.
It might make sense to consider putting the state in the infobox when it's not in the title, but leaving it out when it is in the title. That would of course be a broader discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, the cities are bound to their state. You wouldn’t support changing "Washington, D.C." to "Washington", because it is bound to the federal district. This isn’t much different. We shouldn’t change the title per WP:USPLACE. IWI (chat) 22:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
How do you know what I want in the infobox for Washington, DC? I'm not sure myself; I don't know how you can know. I probably wouldn't support just "Washington", mainly because "District of Columbia" is the more formal name — if anything, I'd support changing it to "District of Columbia". But DC is a sui generis case; there's nothing quite like it anywhere else in the country (not sure about the world). I don't think it has any real bearing on the infobox for LA (or Fresno). --Trovatore (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Because Washington, D.C. is the only way it could be titled. It’s the exact same idea of why it should say "Los Angeles, California". What do you not get about the fact that Los Angeles is bound to California. IWI (chat) 22:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, no it isn't the only way the infobox for DC could be headed. For example, it could be headed (not "titled"; that's for the article) simply "District of Columbia", which is the formal name. I think that might actually be a good idea. The corresponding choice here would be to say "City of Los Angeles", which is the formal name of LA. Then we could leave out the next two lines ("City" and "City of Los Angeles"), which don't add much. --Trovatore (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I repeat, titled; and it is. I disagree with going against a standard across thousands of articles on US places, and I’m sure the majority of others would agree. IWI (chat) 01:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, technically speaking, Washington, D.C. is coterminous with the District of Columbia (similar to NYC boroughs, which are coterminous with counties) i.e. the District covers the same area as Washington, D.C., but isn’t the same thing (hence the comma). I would strongly support the removal of the official name parameter project wide in obvious circumstances (e.g. "City of"), which literally adds nothing. This has already been done at New York CityIWI (chat) 01:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

OK Travatore, now you seem to be open to differentiating the article title from the infobox header. So why not just leave the article title as "Los Angeles" and make the infobox header "Los Angeles, California"? This certainly does add useful information for the reader and the article can also have it all. Castncoot (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
As I've said, I don't care that much. I thought "Los Angeles" was better but that either way was OK. Then after reading Alanscottwalker's argument I wasn't sure anymore even which was better. So if it comes out that people prefer "Los Angeles, California" to head the infobox, that's OK with me. --Trovatore (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@Trovatore:, if will a clear consensus for the option of Los Angeles, California, everyone will have to accept the consensus. Before this happens, you can have your own opinion. If you prefer option of "Los Angeles", is ok, but do not need to change your mind just because user:IWI is trying to push own version. Do not be overwhelmed :) Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 00:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
It looks like the consensus is leaning towards "Los Angeles, California". It's not very clear so I did a request for closure. IWI (chat) 23:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry but there is no clear consensus, even - any consensus. Discussion and arguments are balanced. Consensus is not opinion by user:Trovatore like - I prefer "Los Angeles", but if won the option of "Los Angeles", California" - nothing will happen for me. Please wait for the statements of other users. User:ImprovedWikiImprovment ("IWI"), you are the main opponent for simply option, you are completely biased (not objective) who too much involved to push your version. Please, stop pushing. You are trying to deafen any user who has a different opinion than you. Week is too short time for discussion with other users, not everyone has time to actively edits at the turn of the year 2018/2019. PS. Please, stop doing such tricks. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 00:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Random break #1

  • Los Angeles alone. Including posts from other people: according to the consensus, "Los Angeles" is name of article. Also, according to the WP:INFOBOXGEO and even Wikipedia:Common sense, name in infobox should be the same than name of article. Even the guideline at WP:USPLACE lists a dozen cities including Los Angeles as AP Style exemptions to the usual "city, state" construction - so, the lack of any reliable argument for different names in infobox and article name. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 00:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Subtropical-man: I'm sorry but requesting for closure is not a trick. I was guessing it was going to be no consensus. Again with the USPLACE; if you look at every city on that AP list you will see that they all use this format with the exception of New York City. Everyone is biased, that's why we discuss. Los Angeles is ultimately bound to the state, a state is more than just a geographical region. I apprreciate that consensus isn't a vote, but 4 editors support "Los Angeles, California" while 3 support "Los Angeles". Can you also clarify whether you are accusing me of POV pushing? IWI (chat) 01:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, your requesting for closure is a trick because discussion is still active. Last posts by user:Trovatore, user:Castncoot and you was written 3 January 2019 and 5 January 2019 you requesting for closure?!?! No one wrote in talk page on 4 January 2018 and you need to close the discussion? Nonsense. Back to the topic: your one and only argument (WP:USPLACE) has been refuted because refers to the names of articles, part of articles of US cities has consensus for simply (short) name (without name of state). So, you do not have any arguments. You wrote: "I apprreciate that consensus isn't a vote, but 4 editors support "Los Angeles, California" while 3 support "Los Angeles"" - regarding the vote, I see 3 editors support "Los Angeles" while 3 support "Los Angeles, California" but as you noticed - "consensus isn't a vote" (per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY)... and you have no rational arguments (by skipping the overthrown your one and only argument of WP:USPLACE), so. User:Binksternet (above) wrote it perfectly "The matter is settled" - yes, you do not have any arguments, not even one. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 02:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Subtropical-man: Please try to understand what I am saying before you dismiss my argument. I am saying that ALL of those cities listed on the AP stylebook use the "city, state" format except for NYC. This must indicate something. Here is some of those: Chicago, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Houston. I have drifted from USPLACE as you are correct, but why should this article go against a widely accepted standard. That is my argument, not USPLACE. IWI (chat) 19:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
IWI, most of your examples are lawlessness, the name of the state in the infobox was given without consensus. In these cases, we should think about removing this lawlessness. If there is consensus for short name (without state) for any article, entering state to infobox is lawlessness. So the LA problem is more like a trifle. Any addition of a state name to the infobox in article with consensus for short name should be automatically deleted. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 14:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
As of now at least, the consensus appears to be leaning toward "Los Angeles, California". Is there a closer on this case? Castncoot (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
IWI, Castncoot - seriously: any consensus for long name does not exist and even better - threatens to be (automatical) removed any state names in infoboxes, in US cities articles with consensus for short name. Reason: changes made without consensus and against consensus of short name. According to the rules of Wikipedia - these changes should be undone. So, how? You're letting go here or we are starting the removal of lawlessness for many cities according to the rules of Wikipedia? IWI, Castncoot - better not to open a pandora's box, your choice. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 13:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@Subtropical-man: The very definition of consensus is "a widely accepted standard agreed upon by the community (whether by discussion or stability)"; barely any pages' infoboxes do not contain the state. This page is one of the few exceptions, so it is going against (project) consensus. I don't see anyone opening pandora's box except the people against the re-addition of "California". I found only one other article without the state in the infobox: New York. In any case, I find it hard to believe that thousands of articles have the exact same "issue against consensus", that is implausible. Castncoot, consensus is 50:50; it's not really leaning anywhere. I may do a request for comments on this issue if no consensus is reached. IWI (chat) 23:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, Travatore stated they were leaning toward the fence. Therefore, it's not really 50/50. It's leaning toward "Los Angeles, California". Castncoot (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Castncoot, vote result is 50/50. However, your (with IWI) argument of WP:USPLACE have been refuted (see above) - you only have your own opinion. So, consensus for long name is much less than 50%, even 50/50 is no consensus in any form, to change must to be a clear consensus, for this is very far away. Castncoot, writing nonsense will not change anything, please stop trolling. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 14:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, Subtropical-man. Since you’re still not getting the fact that my point is not USPLACE and never really has been, I will spell it out again for you. If you look at all articles on places in the US, you will see the city, state format. There are an extremely small amount of exceptions to this standard. This includes the other cities listed in the AP stylebook. So my question to you is, what is your point? IWI (chat) 17:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Previously I wrote to Castncoot. You - IWI and Castncoot, both have similar argument/opinion, so I wrote it. By the way, New York (largest city) have short name, Los Angeles (second largest city) also can have short name. Simply. No problem. PS. In the matter of others cities who have consensus for short name and have long name (with state) in infobox - I think that it should be changed to short name, according to the consensus. The fact that someone (propably anonymous IP) added the state to infobox does not mean anything, and according to the rules of Wikipedia - changes can be revoked at any time. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 17:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes of course, Subtropical-man. A single ip is responsible for a standard across thousands of articles. New York is only this way because of a longstanding debate over many aspects of the title; it is also the only example. You may have this view, but many don't; you are also downplaying anyone who disagress with you. I'm sorry, but you're a complete hypocrite. Also, according to what consensus exactly should they all be changed??IWI (chat) 21:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
ImprovedWikiImprovment - What are you writing? thousands of articles? Again: I wrote only about articles with consensus for short name, not about all articles of US cities. Only small part of US cities have consensus for short name (mainly large significant cities) and if any city have consensus for short name, should be a short name. For the rest of articles of US cities (thousands places) - who use WP:USPLACE as standard, I do not speak on this subject, this is a different topic. And... yes, I've been editing Wikipedia for a decade and I know that small editions (like add name of state) in e.g. 50 articles of cities can be entered quietly. Even me I did not notice it. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 22:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Subtropical-man - Like I said, the only main example without it is New York, and that's mostly because "New York, New York" sounds weird to many people. The reason why the state is necessary is because of the relationship. Cities are closely bounded to their states, more than anywhere else you may be aware of. Los Angeles is not simply "in" California, it is an entity that makes up California. Please acknowledge you are completely aware of this aspect of how states work. IWI (chat) 22:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
ImprovedWikiImprovment - your opinion is debatable. You forget about an important issue. Not everyone has a relationship with the US. The world is huge, there are 200 countries and thousands nationalities and majority use "name_of_city", no name_of_city+region or name_of_city+state. For example: there is article Warsaw, not "Warsaw, Poland" or Birmingham, not "Birmingham, England" or "Birmingham, United Kingdom". I know, Warsaw is Poland and Birmingham is England (and UK) but most people in the world use simple spelling, not spelling popular in the USA. English Wikipedia is not American Wikipedia, this is English-speaking Wikipedia and it belongs to the whole world. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 22:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Subtropical-man: Of course, but the relationship between cities and states is completley different to the relationship between Birmingham and England (which is where I live btw). Birmingham is in England. Los Angeles is both in and fundamentally makes up California. This relationship is not anything to do with AmEng, but is simply how it is. I've took this to the dispute resolution noticeboard, I want this to end one way or another soon. IWI (chat) 22:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Random break #2

Per above – should the name of the infobox say "Los Angeles, California" or just "Los Angeles"? IWI (chat) 18:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Los Angeles without the state. As noted at WP:USPLACE, and I quote "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook[2] as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named City unless they are not the primary topic for that name.[3]" Los Angeles meets both requirements: First, it is on the AP Stylebooks "List of cities where you don't name the state" and secondly, it is unambiguously the primary topic for its own name. This is long settled guidance, and I'm not sure why we have to relitigate it on a case-by-case basis every once in a while, but if we're going to do this, lets do this. --Jayron32 20:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Just Los Angeles. Yes, it's possible to have the article name be one thing and the infobox be another, but I don't see anybody putting forth a good reason to have these two things be different. I think the infobox should display just the city name for Los Angeles, and for all of the other cities named in the footnote in USPLACE: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle. Note that in the case of Phoenix, the article name requires disambiguation, but the infobox does not need to display "Arizona" in my opinion, as the context makes it obvious. Also note that Washington, D.C., is an outlier because it already has its own disambiguation. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Awkwardly timed suggestion The more I think about it, the more I think it would be better for all US cities to have the state in either the article title or the infobox header, but not both. So we'd put "Los Angeles, California" in the infobox header for Los Angeles, but just "Portland" (or maybe "City of Portland"?) in the infobox header for Portland, Oregon. Possibly with an exception for cases like Las Vegas, New Mexico, where the city shares a name with a much-better-known city in another state.
    But obviously that's a much wider discussion. If the question is limited to this article alone, then I guess I really don't care. Note that Jayron's guideline-based argument really applies to the article title, not to the infobox header. --Trovatore (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Los Angeles, California for infobox makes sense to me editorially, indeed I think we should do this for all American cities (and, of course, we do for most all). US PLACE is fine for titles (let's be honest, if we were going strictly common-name here, it would be L.A.). But we are not discussing title, we are discussing infobox, and the reason INFOBOXGEO does not demand an outcome is plain, it only speaks in generalities about many different things, rivers and mountains and, etc, etc. American cities have a unique legal and physical relationship with U.S. States, American cities are creations and subjects of states, and states are the sum of their parts, and yes the infobox is meant to inform the reader, and moreover it is less repetitive, when you have Title: Los Angeles Info: Los Angeles, California. In short, to understand Los Angeles, you do have to quickly understand it's a California city and they are inextricably bound together. So, sure editors have freedom in articles, and while I agree with Trovatore, it's not a huge issue, this is my editorial opinion. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC) (copied from above, Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC))
    • Comment The City of Los Angeles as a political entity is a creature of the State of California. That's true. But this article is not (or should not be) primarily about the political entity. It's about the human settlement. Los Angeles as a human settlement substantially predates the State of California. --Trovatore (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
      • The article is about the city in California, its not about, El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles del Río Porciúncula, although that has to be covered when writing about the city in California. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
        • No, I disagree. It's about the human settlement, which has existed without interruption since before the formation of the State of California. --Trovatore (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
          • Trovatore, good point. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 23:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
          • Tovatore: You don't agree it's a city in California? Well, whether you agree or not, it is. We are covering this city in 2019, unless you want almost all the article to be removed. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
              • Of course I agree that it's a city in California. But the article is not primarily about that city as a political entity, which is the only aspect of the city to which the "creations and subjects of their state" point seems to be relevant. --Trovatore (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
                • You want this article to not be about the city in California, then you have to begin by changing the first sentence: "Los Angeles (/lɔːs ˈændʒələs/ (listen); Spanish: Los Ángeles),[16][a] officially the City of Los Angeles and known colloquially by its initials LA, is the most populous city in California . . ." Political entity it is but its character and its being is inseparable from the California city it is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
                  • Of course it's about the city in California. Just not (primarily) about the city as a political entity. Yes, the aspects are separable. --Trovatore (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
                    • No, you can't have or make this city somewhere else than California, it's not only impossible, the city we are writing on would make no sense, least of all for the humans who are there. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
                      • I feel I am failing to explain myself here. Let me try again. I never said it could be somewhere else than California. But California could fail to be here (say, if the movement to split it into multiple states had succeeded), and Los Angeles might nevertheless still be here. The "aboutness" of the article is Los Angeles, not Los-Angeles-considered-as-a-political-entity, and it's only the latter that is a creature of California-as-a-political-entity. --Trovatore (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
                        • Again, we a writing in 2019, not some imagined future, the Los Angeles that exists that we a writing about would not make any sense if it were not in the land and of the land of California -- exactly where and what it is. The city that exists, does not, can not exist otherwise. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
                          • Well, we just disagree on this. I do not think California is "of the essence" of Los Angeles, the political technicalities notwithstanding. --Trovatore (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
                            • The essence of place is place, thus separating a city from its place would completely change the city (different culture, different environment, different just about everything). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
                              • We disagree. I don't care to argue it further, especially when I've already !voted "don't care" on the underlying issue. --Trovatore (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
                                • Alanscottwalker, the problem is you can not understand what Trovatore wrote. However - you did not understand, it's hard but does not make sense explain more. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 01:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
                                  • OK, since Trovatore is now in the "Don't care" column, we definitely as of now have a leaning consensus toward "Los Angeles, California", as Alanscottwalker, ImprovedWikiImprovment, and I have all expressed strong arguments toward returning the infobox header to "Los Angeles, California". Only Subtropicalman here has expressed continuing strong feelings about retaining "Los Angeles" as the infobox header, and frankly, the logic used to support retaining "Los Angeles" confounds me. I guess this is going to be decided at RfC? Or is there a closer ready to close it? Castncoot (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
                                    • Castncoot, your post is probably a joke. Previously, result: 3/3 - no any consensus, after RFC opinions with one new users - Jayron32, he support alone "Los Angeles" - if anything, the consensus has tipped in favor of the short name. Posts by Alanscottwalker and Binksternet - both wrote in first discussion - these are still the same opinions as previously, nothing more. Castncoot, stop writing about consensus because you are still compromising yourself. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 12:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
                                      • Subtropicalman, I love your colorful language. But the fact is that Trovatore now appears to have barely tipped into the "Los Angeles, California" column and Jayron32 apparently mistook the discussion as talking about the article title, not the infobox header. So that leaves you alone as the single strong continuing advocate of the shorter name Los Angeles for the infobox header. Castncoot (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
                                        • Castncoot, three cases. First: Initially, Trovatore clearly supported the options of short name ("Los Angeles"), later he started to get lost, now - he added new argument for short name of "Los Angeles" (the town was founded before California). I do not see anywhere that he support of long name. Second: you have problem with opinion by Jayron32? your problem. If you do not know something - ask Jayron32. Third: number of quarreling / screaming users is not relevant. You Castncoot - when you scream or you will write a own opinion and disappear from discussion - has the same meaning. You mistaken the encyclopedia with a kindergarten. Being too active in a discussion does not mean that you are more important. Your and ImprovedWikiImprovment (IWI) and Alanscottwalker opinions are known, other users are of a different opinion. You think that if you write a lot in the discussion, there will be a consensus??? Sorry, it does not work like that. You only have one vote and your arguments, you must convince others to your arguments, you failed. You and IWI and Alanscottwalker try to write a lot in the discussion, however, you have not convinced other people. There is no any consensus, and even more people think that the short name is better. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, but let’s give it a bit longer. IWI (chat) 10:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Infobox should be Los Angeles, California to make it clear we are not talking about Los Angeles, Texas, or any other place with the same name. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @DannyS712: Are you still the closer on this case? If so, what is your timeline? Castncoot (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
      @Castncoot and Paine Ellsworth: Paine, given that I tried to close this too early, I wanted to ask if a) that means I should not try to close it again, and b) if I should close it, is it still too early? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
      • @DannyS712: No, the previous closure attempt is irrelevant at this point. What is relevant is that you use correct discretion and that in your good judgment, a consensus appears to have emerged, that the discussion content has been extensive and analytical, and that enough time has elapsed such that further discussion will no longer be constructive. If and when you are comfortable to close it with a consensus, do so. Make sure not to insert your opinion about the actual content itself into your closure decision, which is meant to be a summary of the analyses of the other editors. If you are not comfortable, then let some other closer take over. Castncoot (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
        @Castncoot: I am comfortable, but I want to make sure that it is okay. I know you mean the best, but I'd like to get the opinion of an uninvolved party as to whether I should close it. If they don't respond either way within a day or two, I'll probably close it, given that hte conversation has pretty much died --DannyS712 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
        Definitely not an easy call. Discussion began on 29 December and has not yet reached a length of time where the bot would remove the RfC template (30 days). The actual RfC wasn't started until 16 January, so the "advertised" portion is only a week old. Since that RfC beginning, more editors have offered opinions, the latest of which was given today, the 23rd of January. In my opinion, closure in the present moment would be premature, but I could be wrong. An RfC can be closed anytime editors agree that it's time to close it, and those here who have expressed the need for closure are well within the guideline. I personally would give it at least another week for two reasons: 1) the complete discussion began less than a month ago, and the RfC-advertised section is only a week old, and 2) with a new opinion given just today, to end it now might mean to cut it off in midstream, while the RfC is still active. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  09:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
        I also think that it is too early to close. Besides, why close, if there is no clear consensus? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
        @Paine Ellsworth: In that case, I check back in ~a week to see if its still going. Thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
There’s a relatively clear consensus at this point, I’m not sure why you are still fighting Subtropical-man. If you can’t accept that sometimes you’re in the minority, you may be contributing to the wrong website. IWI (chat) 16:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Clear consensus? Clear consensus is 10:1, even 6:3. If there is a tie (draw), one more person for any option is not a clear consensus. User BeenAroundAWhile wrote weak argument in 23 January, maybe 26 January write other new user for other option and 30 January other. As wrote Paine Ellsworth above: RfC can function 30 days. I have no problem with consensus (for long or short name - not relevant but I support only a real consensus), I am an opponent of frauds - the difference of one voice is easy to manipulate: at first was tie (draw), later one user support one option and.... let's close the discussion quickly because we are winning for a moment. It does not work like that. The difference of one voice in a short time of RfC is too controversial to consider this as a consensus. Let's wait for more people, maybe there will be a real consensus. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 17:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@Subtropical-man: Quoting myself, "Yeah, I agree, but let’s give it a bit longer." I don’t want it to be closed but there is a relatively clear consensus, especially since arguments for "Los Angeles" aren’t backed up by anything; "Los Angeles, California" arguments are backed up by solid facts relating to the relationship between US cities and states. IWI (chat) 20:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
You wrote: ""Los Angeles, California" arguments are backed up by solid facts relating to the relationship between US cities and states" - it sounds like fairy tales and legends. Your argument has been refuted: in the world people use short names - only name of city, without state or region (it is not the Wikipedia of the American nation, so - we use international standards) and argument by Trovatore: the town was founded before California. So, your argument is nearly zero. You wrote: "arguments for "Los Angeles" aren’t backed up by anything" - this is total nonsense denying any standards. Name of "Los Angeles" is supported by real arguments of WP:INFOBOXGEO & Wikipedia:Common sense (name in infobox should be the same than name of article), WP:USPLACE (with exemptions to the usual American "city, state"), Wikipedia:Consensus (there is consensus for short name of "Los Angeles") and even international standards (in the world people use short names - only name of city, without state or region). ImprovedWikiImprovment (IWI) and Castncoot, your opinions and tricks are similar, leave your fairy tales at home please. You both have completely lost the possibility of a neutral view of the situation. And again: I have no problem with consensus for long or short name - not relevant but I support only a real clear consensus, without your (or Castncoot) tricks to push your version. Simple. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 01:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
You are way too passionate about this. Like I said, the argument "this is the world's Wikipedia" is quite ridiculous. It doesn't matter who is reading it, Los Angeles is bound to California, which is why all U.S. city articles use the city, state format. There is no reason to go against this here; there is nothing special about L.A.. WP:USPLACE refers only to the article title; states are more than regions, but political entities, that are self-governing to a degree; and "fairy-tales and legends"? Grow up, seriously. IWI (chat) 14:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I have a suggestion. Please stopping your (and Castncoot) tricks to push your version, please stopping lies that there is a consensus and other like this things. Please stop any actions in this topic. You presented own opinion, I also, Castncoot and Alanscottwalker also - so, just wait for opinion by other users. When (if) will be a consensus, let someone neutral (no American - because neutrality will be difficult in this matter) close this RfC without rushing posts by Castncoot. The problem here is your (and Castncoot) pressure and manipulations, stopped it - then I will also disappear from discussion. Simple. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
You can't tell anybody to abstain from a discussion unless you have consensus to do so. IWI (chat) 19:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
This was only suggestion, no command. Ok, keep on trolling. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Random break #3

  • Los Angeles. Neutral. From the guideline: (The infobox) should be named the common name of the article's subject but may contain the full (official) name; this does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title[...]. This is not open to interpretation. In this article about the City of Angels in California, the only choices are the common name, which according to the article title is "Los Angeles", or the official name, which is "City of Los Angeles". According to the guideline, the name of the state is not an option, so the state name should not be used in the infobox in this article. Gentle reminder that the guideline represents the consensus of the community. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  16:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Paine Ellsworth: US cities are a very clear exception to this, due to the relationship between the city and state as described above. That's why there are very few examples in which "city, state" isn't used in the infobox across US cities. That is a very general guideline; also it is a guideline. IWI (chat) 18:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
      • To editor IWI: yes, it is a guideline, it is a community consensus. And it is the consensus of the community to include the common name (preferred) or the official name. I'm all for IAR when there is very good reason to go against community consensus; however, unfortunately I've read nothing in this discussion that I think would justify breaking the rule. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  20:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: The point is that Los Angeles is bound to California, so that is how it should be displayed. Besides, isn’t the fact that every other US city article uses this format consensus in of itself? IWI (chat) 20:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
IWI, you did not think that your argument of "Los Angeles is bound to California" for most users outside USA is weak argument. Respect the opinion of others and stop spamming and trolling under each opinion different than yours. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, clearly not true since I’m not American. I’m not spamming but explaining. Just stand down here, you are annoying all parties involved with your repeated whining comments, Subtropical-man IWI (chat) 02:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Unsure why you would think that a city being "bound" to a state should give us pause and make us break the rule; however, your second observation might be a strong argument. It's almost impossible to prove and easy to disprove. All that's needed is just one US city article that does not use the "city, state" format in the infobox. My guess is there are more. In city articles, the common name is always the name of the city; when the state name is present it's just comma-separated disambiguation. So any and all city-article infoboxes that have the state name as part of the name in the infobox could probably be changed, so as to be in accordance with the guideline and its consensus. The state's name in the title of a city infobox is considered by the community to be overkill, that is, unnecessary excess. If you think the guideline is wrong, then you could always start a discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  08:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: There is an overwhelming amount of US city pages that use this format, and have for a while; in my books, that’s a major agreed standard that shouldn’t be overlooked. I don’t think the guideline is wrong, it just doesn’t entirely work here. It’s like Washington, D.C.; the "D.C." is required as it is bound to the federal District of Columbia. It’s the same with cities in states, they are bound, omitting the state creates a sort of disconnection. As I said before, Los Angeles isn’t just in California, it is part of, and makes up California. IWI (chat) 12:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth (and others): I just saw this now. Please look at this (Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline). Per the rule of "City, State" in the infobox header, I am changing the infobox in the article. Consensus will then be needed to over turn the rule. Castncoot (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, you but wrong. There is consnsus for Los Angeles, without Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 17:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but learn how to use proper English grammar and learn how to follow the rules of Wikipedia, starting with WP:Consensus and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. "Los Angeles, California" was the stable format for years. So you need consensus to overturn the rule. Castncoot (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
From October 2018 stable version is "Los Angeles", I do not care what was in the past. Per consensus name of article is "Los Angeles", not "Los Angeles, California" and if any IP added text of "California" to name the city, we should reverted it beacuse IP's edit is against consensus. Please stop trolling. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 17:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure, Castncoot, that you remember and don't mind adhering to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which is the policy on handling conflicts between guidelines and essays – unless there is very good reason (which I still haven't heard thus far) then the community who achieved the consensus of the guideline must prevail. And that consensus says "no", state names should not be used in infobox titles. Only "common names" such as "Los Angeles" or full, official names like "City of Los Angeles" should be used to title infoboxes. So unfortunately, that essay is sadly wanting, and in accordance with the guideline and with the policy, it should be changed. Now maybe we see why the format is so widespread? An editor decided to put that in an essay, but forgot that putting it in an essay does not change the guideline? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  17:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, Paine Ellsworth: then let's elevate the discussion here to a level that another editor I'm not confident would able to achieve. Please look at Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, and any number of major U.S. cities. If we don't cement that widely followed essay as GL, then we're going to have to change the vast majority of the wikiarticles of common U.S. cities. Why should Los Angeles be any different from any of those other city articles, Paine? Do you see how something is very wrong here? Castncoot (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Cementing that essay, as you say, can be done only by discussing it on the talk page of the guideline. The essay might turn out to be a good reason to include the state name requirement in the guideline, or we might find out why the community prefers to omit the state name from ibox titles. As for the widespread use of the "city, state" format in iboxes, that can be changed with minimum effort. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  18:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I suppose that in that case, IWI, we should also use "US" or "United States" in the ibox as well, since Los Angeles is bound to California, which is bound to the US. Since the US is bound to North America, then maybe we should use N.A. with it as well? Sorry that arg is not enough in my opinion to break the rule made by community consensus in the guideline. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  18:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I respect your opinion, Paine Ellsworth, but Los Angeles is not politically bound directly to the US, but via California. The US also isn't politically bound to North America. As the user says below, it isn't a "rule", it's a "guideline". IWI (chat) 18:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, IWI, and I'm sure you know that I also respect your opinion. I love it when editors say, "It isn't a rule, it's a guideline." So what exactly does WP:IAR refer to as a "rule"? And because it's a "guideline", are we to just throw out the community consensus that shaped that guideline over the last decade-plus? This article should remain as is until this issue is resolved at the proper venue – the talk page of the guideline itself! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  18:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Just to comment here on Wikipedia policy and precedent, without taking sides on the question of the infobox name: First, please note that both Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline and WP:USPLACE are guidelines - not policies or rules - about how to style the names of US cities. The US Guideline page shows an illustration infobox with “City name, State name” as the heading; that is apparently what Castncoot is referring to as a “rule”. USPLACE lists 40 cities for which we do NOT need to list the state name; one of them is Los Angeles. However, USPLACE refers only to the titles of articles, not content. Most of the 40 cities whose titles do not use the state (such as Houston, San Diego, and Miami) do put “city, state” in the infobox even though it is not used in the title. However, New York City’s infobox just says “New York”. Conclusion: most of the cities that do not use the state name in the title do use it in the infobox, but there appears to be room for exceptions due to local consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I forgot to reference WP:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Consistency between infoboxes: The template should have a large, bold title line. Either a table caption or a header can be used for this. It should be named the common name of the article's subject but may contain the full (official) name; this does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title, but falling back to use that (with the {{PAGENAME}} magic word) is usually fine. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for that. That is the guideline that either needs to be altered or needs to be adhered to. Or if someone would come up with a very good reason, that is the guideline that could be ignored. No very good reason has emerged, in my opinion, so the state name should not be added to the ibox title. Your opinion would be appreciated if you are so inclined. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  19:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Paine, I have no opinion on what should be the outcome of this discussion; I am simply trying to keep the discussion focused and civil. Another point about WP decision making: I see people here talking about a "rule", as something which must be followed. Please see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Policies are standards that all users should normally follow, and guidelines are generally meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense. In other words, policies MUST be followed; guidelines are interpretations of policies and ARE GENERALLY followed, but per common sense there can be occasional exceptions without a need to rewrite the guideline. The real problem in discussions like this is that people can find different guidelines that can both can be applied to a situation but suggest different outcomes. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN: you are absolutely correct that New York City is the exception to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline- but that is the sole exception to this widely used GL- and that was specifically made the exception to this widely used GL by consensus, in substantial part because the city and the state share the same name; and for smoother reader flow, this exception was hence made for New York. But this issue would not hold true for Los Angeles, which should follow in the same vein as Chicago, Houston, and scores of other large US city wikipages with regards to infoboxes. Changing all but the questioned exception is neither practical nor makes sense. Castncoot (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
This time you got me, Castncoot, you and MelanieN. I've gone neutral on this issue and have but one tiny question... why is an exception made only for the NYC ibox? "New York, New York" is a common way to refer to the city, and in fact, when only "New York" is seen by readers, it's unclear whether the city or state is meant. I think, if we're going to IAR the guideline with a WikiProject essay, then it should be done across the board with no exceptions, not even NYC. The way the city's ibox title looks now can be very confusing to readers and should be rethought. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  23:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Just read the NYC talk page, so never mind. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  00:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Do we have a closer? Castncoot (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@MelanieN:, @DannyS712:, can somebody please close this discussion? We apparently have a leaning consensus and no recent comments. Thanks, Castncoot (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Castncoot: I'll defer to someone more experienced for this close --DannyS712 (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Castncoot. I guess I am "uninvolved" enough to try to close this, and it certainly looks ripe for closure, i.e., has gone on long enough and discussion has run dry. It will take me a while. I think I will put a "closing" box over it so that we don't suddenly get a bunch of new discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Please discuss the content, not other editors. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@MelanieN:, yes. Los Angeles have "local" consensus for short name - consensus opposite for WP:USPLACE or another: consensus for decline of WP:USPLACE in article of Los Angeles. Also, consensus for name of "Los Angeles" is compatible with Wikipedia:Manual of Style and WP:INFOBOXGEO. From a legal point of view, this case is clear: in article of Los Angeles must to be used short name of "Los Angeles". However, there may be a local consensus: previous for short name of article name and new consensus for only long name in infobox. That's why I started this discussion. The problem is that, there are different opinions in the discussion and few users spamming and trolling under each opinion different than own. Everyone has the right to their own opinion but if any user supported short name of "Los Angeles" always - again: always IWI or Castncoot attacks the user with their opinions. I think that a mediator is needed. Everyone has the right to their own opinion and ... opinions by IWI and Castncoot are very very well know, they do not have to write 100 times again. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
We're just discussing, Subtropical-man, not spamming. Like I said, either contribute directly to the subject or stand down. Content not contributor(s). IWI (chat) 18:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
See again, for example: Talk:Los_Angeles#Random_break_#3 - opinion by user Paine Ellsworth. The user has confirmed that read your previous posts but no, you write the same thing 100 times. This is not discussing, this is spamming. Please stop it and let others write own opinion. This also applies to the user Castncoot. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
To editors Subtropical-man and ImprovedWikiImprovment: with all due respect to both of you, in the future please take all user-oriented discussion to the appropriate user talk page. This is about (and only about) an issue, the issue of whether or not to use the state name in the title of the ibox. This is not about fellow editors and whether or not you think they are wrong. If you think another editor is BLUDGEONING, then take it to their talk page and, if necessary, to WP:AN/I. Please, no more about it here, and thank you for your consideration in this matter. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  19:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth, I respect IWI and Castncoot, and opinion by IWI and Castncoot but the principle is simple: IWI and Castncoot, do not attack users with a different opinion and do not spamming each post by new user who wrote different opinion than yours. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 19:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Subtropical-man, I got that the 99th time you wrote it. Please don't write it again in this discussion. When you have that kind of problem with another editor, it should be resolved somewhere else, not in this discussion about an issue. All it does is to cloud the issue and does not help your case. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  19:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is somebody going to implement this result, or do I have to? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your time and effort. Castncoot (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Airports

I was wondering if it would make sense to add John Wayne Airport and Ontario Airport to the list of secondary airports. What’s the criteria for an airport to be listed in terms of distance and proximity from the city center? Clearly, those two airports would meet the criteria for passenger numbers and air traffic because Van Nuys Airport is listed, which has way less air traffic and is mostly a general aviation airport with barely any airline service. At what point do we decide that a particular airport is or isn’t relevant enough to LA for it to be listed? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Hello, Mrbeastmodeallday, and thanks for raising the question. I assume you are talking about the infobox listings. IMO those listings should be the same as what is in the Los Angeles#Airports section of the article, namely, to list the four secondary commercial airports but not Van Nuys. It looks to me like we don’t usually list general aviation airports in the city infobox. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Snowy-mountain photo

As part of a huge batch edit (aside — it's better to go slower and give people time to evaluate changes one at a time), TheCaliBook removed this photo, apparently on the grounds that it's "low quality".

In some ways, that's true. The picture is very grainy, and seems to have been taken through a lens or filter with water spots on it. The focus is also not utterly crisp.

Aside from those technical flaws (which are less noticeable at the size most viewers are likely to see the picture), though, it's a very interesting shot, and very appropriate for the article. I particularly love the snow, and the implied wilderness, which is something that a lot of people don't associate with Los Angeles. I would really like that aspect to come across. And the direct contrast with downtown's urban-ness is wonderful.

I tried cleaning up the photo in the GIMP but didn't have much luck. If the sky could be de-speckled without losing detail in the mountains or the foreground, that would be a significant improvement. Maybe someone who's better with photo-editing tools could take a crack at it? Or maybe Bovinecop has another version? Or if someone knows where to find a similar shot with higher "production values"? --Trovatore (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine if a higher quality file may be chosen such as something similar to this, or even a better edited file. I appreciate your great work into the file and honestly, I'm quite fine as long as something of better quality or an image of high quality with the mountainscape is included. The mountainscape in the background does truly point out something unique. But again if nothing good enough to suffice can be found then it would be better to have it reverted back to the image I had. --TheCaliBook (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, it's not my shot. It seems to have been uploaded by Bovinecop, who does not seem to be very active on English Wikipedia. --Trovatore (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Alternatively, someone with a better camera could go to the same location and take a photo. The current one shouldn't be removed; the graininess is not visible on the page at the current size. IWI (chat) 23:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately it looks like that only after a cold winter storm, and I don't know when the next one will be. I agree with IWI that the technical flaws should not rule out the image. --Trovatore (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Then we have our verdict. Let us leave it be.TheCaliBook (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Trovatore and TheCaliBook: If the mountain rarely looks like that, then maybe it would be more representative without the snow anyway. I don't think a snowy mountain is a good representation of Los Angeles. When is the last time it snowed there? IWI (chat) 23:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovment:, so we revert it back to the file I had?TheCaliBook (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@TheCaliBook: Possibly, although I would prefer the mountain photo without the snow in higher quality. IWI (chat) 23:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
No, I think we should keep the snow. It's not rare at all; happens every winter, pretty much, though some years more than others. It gives the mountains much more visual interest than they would have without it. --Trovatore (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
@Trovatore: Yes but not most times. We shouldn't give the false impression that the mountains are always snow covered. IWI (chat) 23:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the picture gives that impression. Any image is going to be from some particular time, with some particular look. We might as well choose one of the more interesting ones. --Trovatore (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree; we must find another one or get it taken!--TheCaliBook (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Obviously from my user page, I don't live in California so I can't do it. I wonder if there's some kind of platform on commons to request a photo? If anyone has a good camera, they could go to the location and take the photo. IWI (chat) 23:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I just don't have a good camera sadly.--TheCaliBook (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there is a way to request a photo on commons somehow? IWI (chat) 23:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Let me look it up real quick.TheCaliBook (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I found this. I will make the request if other editors agree with it. IWI (chat) 23:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, I would very much like to have snow. I will keep an eye out for a good opportunity to take such a picture. --Trovatore (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Doesn't look like it's been used in years unfortunately. IWI (chat) 23:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with snow being there at all really. IWI (chat) 23:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
I say go ahead with the picture request. The snow is barely here in LA.TheCaliBook (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I also think that main photo with snow in the mountains for Los Angeles is a bad option, especially because the snow in the mountains occurs outside the administrative borders of the city! I do not see any reason for the snow in the main picture of Los Angeles. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    OK, again, I think that's an over-emphasis on LA as a political entity, which is not the topic of this article. The political borders are nice for definiteness to say what "is" or "is not" in Los Angeles, but the surroundings are absolutely relevant. --Trovatore (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    ...however, snow in the mountains is not important, especially in the main picture of the city. If you want info about snow in mountains located several dozen miles from the city center, you can insert some short information to the article, however, placing snow in the main picture of the city of Los Angeles is ridiculous. It is so ridiculous like photo of Everglades National Park located on the western outskirts of the Miami agglomeration insert as the main picture in article of Miami because "the surroundings are absolutely relevant". Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 21:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    Note that the snow is just in the background. The main part of the picture is DTLA. The snow shows something a lot of people don't know, the fact that LA is nestled in an area of enormous natural beauty. I think that's a good thing to get across in the article. (Well, except that it might make even more people want to come here — maybe I should rethink that aspect :-). ) --Trovatore (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    So far no one else thinks we should have that image.--TheCaliBook (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    Has a request been answered? Otherwise we should revert to the non-snowy mountain image.TheCaliBook (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@TheCaliBook: Like I said, it doesn't look like the page has been used in years. Add your image back per WP:BOLD and see what happens. IWI (chat) 22:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I strongly prefer the existing image. --Trovatore (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but your support is non-existent. TheCaliBook (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
You referred to the "non-snowy mountain image", suggesting that there would still be mountains, even if without snow. I don't see any mountains in the photo. --Trovatore (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I subbed it in for the bridge, which is a much less visually interesting shot. By the way, I tried to reproduce this shot with my own camera, and it turns out that it's quite challenging. I think it needs a serious telephoto. I now have much more respect for the quality of the original image. --Trovatore (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
That image captures the essence of LA perfectly IMO. IWI (chat) 11:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Normally I am a stickler for restricting "Los Angeles" articles to the City of L.A., but in this case I think the photo should be used. Reason: You can see those mountains from L.A., and they are part of the view from a goodly part of L.A. I really don't see what other geographic article this photo could be used in, and, as was said elsewhere, Downtown Los Angeles is centered in the photo. The caption should make it clear just what we are looking at. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
It's a gorgeous view, and it really isn't that rare. It's quite possible that something like it will be possible to capture in the next few days, as soon as the current series of storms clear. But it's much more difficult to capture than I had realized before I tried to do it myself. I think you need a real telephoto lens. --Trovatore (talk) 05:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The snowy grainy picture was re-added so I reverted it per this discussion.TheTexasNationalist99 (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Neighbors and enclaves

I can't find any mention in this article of Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Culver City, or Marina del Rey. Pasadena appears only once, in a line about Bob Hope Airport. Santa Monica is mentioned regarding the subway, and appears in other place names.

Am I alone in thinking this is a bit of an omission in an article this comprehensive? Would there be support for adding it, say, as a subsection of the "Geography" section? --Trovatore (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to name the suburbs or adjacent communities. It's not as if they are needed for geographical context; they are not better known than Los Angeles! In an article about Santa Monica or Beverly Hills of course we are going to mention its proximity to Los Angeles, but the reciprocal is not needed. Let's face it, LA is the colossus here. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, I think it's useful to have a more detailed general geographic description, and that would include the neighbors and enclaves. Los Angeles has an odd shape, includes pieces that don't seem like they would be part of the city (the Valley and San Pedro), and excludes parts that you would think would be part of it (say, West Hollywood). How many (say) New Yorkers know that Hollywood is part of LA (as a political entity) but West Hollywood is not?
I think we could usefully spend a paragraph or two working around the various geographical places in prose, possibly also detailing neighborhoods that are part of the political entity (Brentwood does not appear in the article! just for example). --Trovatore (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Plus there's things such as the sports teams that are named for the city but play in nearby municipalities. I've seen LA described in travel guides as being "made up of many small cities". And while there's the one big incorporated city that is actually named Los Angeles, any discussion of the human settlement that doesn't include at least some coverage of the wider concept of Greater Los Angeles is insufficient. In that regard, LA is like Sydney, in that the actual incorporated city is only part of the whole picture. oknazevad (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Well that would be referring to th Los Angeles metropolitan area, not here. IWI (chat) 13:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes and no. Again, like Sydney or Melbourne, there's zero good reason for the article to actively and purposely omit any mention of the interdependence of the city with its neighbors. oknazevad (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Transportation info in infobox being marked “spam”

It seems that someone has recently removed a ton of info on Los Angeles’s highways, airports and rail lines from the infobox because they considered it “spam.” Is it really spam, though? I feel like that sort of information needs to stay put because it summarizes the transportation section in a concise yet still detailed way, just as other parts of the infobox show snapshots of their own respective sections (geography, politics, demographics/population, etc.) Pf1127 (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Is it normal to have all that junk there New York City? Full of icons contrary to our policies? --Moxy 🍁 18:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Los Angeles, NV listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Los Angeles, NV. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 20:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Los Angeles, Arizona listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Los Angeles, Arizona. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 20:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

"Los Angeles, California"

When I saw the name in the infobox, I paused to check if I had opened the article about the Los Angeles. I went ahead to "fix" the infobox and then I noticed that this has been discussed. I may be late for the discussion but I find it bizarre to treat the article as the primary topic for "Los Angeles" and exclude disambiguation from the title but then include it in the infobox. Having an infobox header that is more complex than the article title defeats the purpose of infoboxes: summarizing. Indeed, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE says: "Wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." This is also absurd because the name parameter is supposed to include "the usual name in English" per Template:Infobox settlement/doc, and in this case (as well as in general) the usual name in English is the one chosen to be the title of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I am confused as to what the problem is. What is wrong with the infobox? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
The name. It says "Los Angeles, California" instead of simply "Los Angeles". That is inconsistent with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and generally senseless for the reasons given above. Surtsicna (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Checking the infoboxes at San Francisco and Chicago, I see they also include the state names, so it appears the WP community has decided that is OK. I'd advise against trying to change that WP:Concensus, although you can try it if you think everybody else will go along. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
There was a "weak consensus" for this in December 2018 but it strikes me as truly odd. Meanwhile in the article about New York City, the infobox says simply "New York" (common name), not even "New York City", let alone "New York City, New York". Same with Las Vegas, where it's simply "Las Vegas". At the very least the infobox name should reflect the article name. In addition to the reasons given above, the state name in the name field is redundant because the infobox makes it perfectly clear that the city belongs to California. Surtsicna (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Los_Angeles/Archive_9&oldid=931911421"