Talk:Highland Park, Los Angeles

Is the current edit reasonable?

I figure that all the stuff about hipsters balances out with the gang problem. As for "slummy," well, my mother says that Los Feliz looks "slummy," so YMMV.--Slightlyslack 00:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Good work. Thanks for editing the article mercilessly. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Harbor City, Los Angeles, California which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 19:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Interested editors can also comment at Talk:Los Angeles Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 22:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

council people

We have new a new council man,please update this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.5 (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120405192121/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/lifestyle/travel/experience-an-alternative-los-angeles-7445709.html to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/travel/experience-an-alternative-los-angeles-7445709.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Highland Park, Los Angeles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029203959/http://www.kcet.org/socal/departures/highland-park/reinterpreting-highland-park/galcos-soda-pop-stop.html to http://www.kcet.org/socal/departures/highland-park/reinterpreting-highland-park/galcos-soda-pop-stop.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029200028/http://movielanddirectory.com/tour-location.cfm?location=41323&from_movie=54597 to http://movielanddirectory.com/tour-location.cfm?location=41323&from_movie=54597
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029201901/http://lafd.org/fs12.htm to http://www.lafd.org/fs12.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://latimes.com/classified/realestate/printedition/la-re-guide12oct12%2C1%2C7214993.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050728132429/http://www.southwestmuseum.org/ to http://www.southwestmuseum.org/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Neighborhood sign

There was an edit yesterday which replaced the picture in the infobox which featured one of Highland Park's neighborhood signs with another of the building that used to house the Highland Federal Savings and Loan. That seemed a better choice, at least to me, because it seemed more representative than the sign, which merely reproduces the neighborhood name already prominent in the article title, beginning of lead, and top of infobox.

My question: was there an RfC for Los Angeles neighborhood articles that occurred earlier this year wherein consensus preferred neighborhood signs rather than representative photographs of notable local buildings in the infobox? Just curious.

Courtesy ping @Cristiano Tomás and Phatblackmama: since their respective edits and reverts prompted my question. Thanks! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I am unaware of any such consensus. Normal infobox image practices would dictate that infobox images for cities, towns, and such to display relevant landmarks, cityscapes, or scenery rather than a picture of a sign that merely says the same words that are printed at the top of the infobox already. Unless someone can provide evidence for the contrary, I will revert the revert. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24 and Cristiano Tomás:As far as I know, there has been no Rfc. However, the signage does designate official recognition of the neighborhood by the city (as opposed to advocacy by a homeowners group) . I think that is important and best expressed by the sign itself. Do you disagree? Phatblackmama (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference one way or another, though will admit to now having a slight preference for an image or collage of images that represents notable structures/landmarks in an area. It just had never occurred to me to think about this matter until the recent edit/revert. Maybe an RfC wouldn't be a bad idea. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24: I understand what you are saying. And for some LA neighborhoods, there are landmarks that do define the area, such as the Hollywood sign or, to a lesser extent, the eagle rock of Eagle Rock. But as in the case of Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles, a generic photo of a street tells the reader nothing. The sign says that the city recognizes the neighborhood. I confess that I have a preference for the signs... I don't see signs like that in New York, D.C. or other cities I have visited.. they are a unique to this city.

In response to Phatblackmama (talk · contribs), I do not agree at all. There are signs for cities, neighborhoods, counties, etc. across California, the country and the world. Usage of these signs in infoboxes is not only uncommon but a rarity. What would be the purpose of the image section if the image merely shows a name that is quite literally right above the image already? This is not only good infobox practices, standard across articles about cities and neighborhoods across the world and across different language wikis. In response to CurryTime7-24 (talk · contribs), I disagree on the need of an RfC under the same logic. There is precedent already across wikis and articles regarding good image selection for place infoboxes. I'll end by asking you both to consider if the Los Angeles article infobox montage should include this image? (Also: however, if no other image exists of a neighborhood, I would say that is an acceptable situation to include the sign in the infobox) Best to you both, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cristiano Tomás: What city has neighborhood signs posted? From Murray Hill in New York to the Nob Hill in San Francisco to Salamanca in Madrid...I have not seen neighborhood signs put up by a city to designate official neighborhoods. As Bianca Barrigan wrote in LAist [1]... the blue sign designates that the neighborhood is official (her emphasis, not mine). Phatblackmama (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

That's really not the point, the signs regurgitate words that are listed at the top of the infobox already. Signs do not serve to visually represent the actual place they cover. Regardless of their officialness or not. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cristiano Tomás: I think you are mistaken by dismissing the signs. They are more than simply repetition. As the Japan Times noted [2], "Local residents successfully lobbied to have the neighborhood officially recognized as Sawtelle Japantown in 2015". The picture in the newspaper is the sign itself. These signs are important to a lot of residents. The define their neighborhood. @CurryTime7-24: any further thoughts? Phatblackmama (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

In WP's context, they are not more than simply repetition. These signs are not important to a lot of WP readers, and do not for our readers define these neighborhoods. There might not be an objection to including them somewhere in the article, but they are not useful as the infobox picture.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

They define a neighborhood in real life; they certainly are meaningful on the street for various practical and aesthetic reasons. But that doesn't necessarily mean that translates effectively into prominent uniform use here. What is official for the City of Los Angeles, may not necessarily be so for Wikipedia.

Intracounty/state/national demarcation limit signs typically are not displayed first and foremost in articles about their respective cities, states, etc. the way the Los Angeles neighborhood signs have recently been; even very famous ones, such as the Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas sign, are not similarly featured. That doesn't even appear in the Las Vegas Strip article, while in the one for Las Vegas Boulevard it only shows up about 2/3 of the way down.

Again, I personally think a representative collage of monuments, buildings, natural features, etc. of a particular neighborhood is more informative. That also may be the expectation of other readers, if similar articles about neighborhoods, cities, regions, etc. elsewhere are any indication. These collages give a reader an idea of what distinguishes one area from another, as well as encapsulate its particular character and history. However, I'm not interested in unilaterally imposing this view on this page or other Los Angeles neighborhoods. Which is why I would urge to hold an RfC to obtain consensus from other editors in order to determine how to continue. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24:Thank you for that thoughtful explanation. i don't disagree with you - I have not problem with a collage, particularly if that is what most readers expect.

I guess my issue is.... if you look at the history of Wilshire Park, you will see that a complaint was made that the page was deleted twice and later merged with Koreatown. The deleting-user insisted that Wilshire Park was not a neighborhood, but simply a place within Koreatown [3]. After the article was restored, BobOfAllTrades took his own photo of the sign [4] and added it to the restored article with the caption: "Sign identifying Wilshire Park as a Los Angeles Neighborhood"[5]. It was a direct and visual way to show that this was a city-recognized neighborhood - and not some sub-area of another community.

I saw BobOfAllTrades photo solution as elegant and simple.

I should note that when the photo of the Wilshire Park sign was added, the article did not have an infobox. I added the infobox a year later and placed the sign in it. In your opinion, would it have been better to just leave the sign as it was... a stand-alone photo and caption? Phatblackmama (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)