Talk:Los Angeles/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Discussion on 12 October 2019 edits

I'm getting told to Discuss on talk because on the report of John from Idegon New content requires consensus. get it prior to changing the article again.... here I am trying to make some beneficial edits by adding a list to the see also page and removing neighborhoods like Eastside Los Angeles and Skid Row, Los Angeles as to not getting why they are there when you could go to the page List of cities and towns in California which already is on the section of the page and adding both a subject bar and category for 1781 establishments in North America I think which are useful, as for pompous London, I have told John that it was unsourced so I do not get why this is New content and requires consensus, could someone discuss on this? This is my edit 101.176.22.6 (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

More museums per capita than any city on Earth?

"Los Angeles has more museums per capita than any other city in the world." Is this true? Loyola Marymount's website is the source cited, and it says more museums per capita than any city in the nation, but also does not cite any sources. I don't want to delete it, because from a cursory search it does look like 841 museums and galleries is extraordinarily high for any city and probably worth noting, but I can't find a reliable source to compare it to other cities. Mayawagon (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that the [[List of museums in Los Angeles County, California] (museums in the county but outside of the city) has only 132 museums, and the List of museums in Los Angeles (city) has 100, which is nowhere near the 841 museums and galleries cited in the page. It could be that the remainder is made up of non-notable galleries that don't warrant Wikipedia pages, but again would be good to have a source. Mayawagon (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Changed to "in the U.S." like the source says. There should be better sources we can cite for this statement. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

"Vietnamese Americans in Los Angeles" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vietnamese Americans in Los Angeles. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"Indian Americans in Los Angeles" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Indian Americans in Los Angeles. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"Cambodian Americans in Los Angeles" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cambodian Americans in Los Angeles. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

"Brazilian Americans in Los Angeles" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Brazilian Americans in Los Angeles. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

this was locked and the unlocked

why do you always change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.190.72 (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Metro areas

This change (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Los_Angeles&type=revision&diff=942744416&oldid=942618779) was made, to add another metro area to the description, but the old source was left in the paragraph. Can somebody find current information with a current source? Thanks to all. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Added, with source (PDF, formal delineations, p. 134). "Greater Los Angeles" corresponds to the combined statistical area recognized by the U.S. Census Bureau (and defined by the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB). This definition is used throughout Wikipedia. See Greater Los Angeles, first paragraph, last sentence, and especially List of United States combined statistical areas. One of these two linked WP articles would generally suffice as a source, but OK: formal source provided. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Ethnonym

It should be mentioned somewhere on the article that the most common name for inhabitants of Los Angeles, among those who live there, is "Angelino" (sometimes spelled "Angeleno").[1] Also, people living in Los Angeles would generally regard the British pronunciation ending in the sounds "-eez" as simply 100% incorrect, no matter how many British people say it, or how long they've been saying it... AnonMoos (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: Just noticed this — "Angeleno" is the only correct spelling. "Angelino" is an error. --Trovatore (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Right! It's only Angeleno and nothing else.

I doubt the British pronunciation brings anything more than a smirk to the faces of Angelenos. They don't get bent out of shape by mispronunciations. Binksternet (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I have seen within the past 15 years quite a lengthy article favoring Angelino. (Well, it was on a restaurant menu.) And we mustn't forget Angelino Heights. Anyway, I've checked Newspapers.com, and Angelino was used quite extensively between 1880 and 1910. Still, we must have a Reliable source for anything we put in good ol' WP, right? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Also Los Angelinos was often used to refer to people who lived in Los Angeles. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

"Angelino" is clearly wrong — it's "little angel", if we were talking Italian instead of Spanish (Spanish I suppose would be "Angelito"). I assume the correct spelling is "Angeleño" and the enye got elided. --Trovatore (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that; I'm sure you are on the right track. But it doesn't matter what we think; it's what the sources say. If between 1890 and 1910, most newspaper articles in L.A. got it wrong, then that's what we use, with citations, of course. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

A twenty-year interval more than a century ago??? In any case hit-frequency comparisons don't count as reliable sources, certainly not reliable secondary sources. The KCET link posted by AnonMoos says that Angeleno edged out Angelino by 2008, which is awfully recent I admit. A different KCET article (a followup to the first one, I think) favors Angeleño; see here.

Of course these are blog posts, not ideal from a RS perspective, but maybe the best we're going to find. --Trovatore (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Evening Express used "Los Angeleños" back in 1876. [2] BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

"Angelenos" (without a tilde) is the universal name for residents now. As for pronunciation, our article has it right as pronounced by the people who live there, thoroughly anglicized from the original Spanish. I am aware of two alternate/incorrect pronunciations. Yes, some people do say Loss Angel-eez. And it used to be common for people from back east to harden the G - Loss Angle-us. No need to mention any of this in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Article is about the city

We have to be sure that all the info in here is about the city of L.A. and not about the L.A. Metropolitan area or the County of Los Angeles. There are other articles for that info. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

If we're talking of statistics, yes, but like many world cities, it's hard to discuss the city without it's interdependence with the surrounding (and enclosed) areas. Especially when major parts of the city's services and infrastructure are controlled by agencies not part of the city government. We can't really omit those things from an article about the city because they are part of the city as a human settlement. oknazevad (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The article is about the city (though not primarily about the city as a political entity, a point which bears repeating). But it is not possible to understand the city without understanding the surrounding area. It's silly to artificially cut off information just because it crosses a political boundary.

So obviously we're not going to delve deeply into, say, the history of Santa Monica in this article. But the bicycle paths along the ocean go back and forth between LA and Santa Monica; these paths might well be worth a mention, and the fact that they go through Santa Monica on the way from LA to LA would not be out of place. --Trovatore (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't it about the city as a political entity? I believe it is. It's a CITY, not a blotch on a map. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

A city is many things. One of those things, but not remotely the most important, is a political entity. --Trovatore (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree. A city is far more than its political identity. It's the geography, the people, the culture, the economy, the history - all the things that we include in any city article. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Snow

Every winter, or nearly, there is snow visible from Los Angeles, so it is not at all unrepresentative. It makes a visually compelling backdrop for a shot of downtown. The image by Alek Leckszas added by Ikon21 is gorgeous and does not have the technical flaws of the earlier snow image. I see no valid reason not to include it. --Trovatore (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The image from 2/2019 centers Downtown Los Angeles within the frame and makes the city centre easily visible. The previous image from 12/2016 off centers downtown towards the upper left quadrant of the frame and the distance in addition to the lighting overcasts the skyline resulting in it becoming it hard to see for the readers. As the downtown skyline is perhaps the most prominent and easily recognizable feature of Los Angeles, it is better to use the most recent available photo that clearly displays the city centre, which at this moment is the snowcapped 2/2019 image. --Ikon21 (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The image #2 has better quality than image #0, but this is the same shot and snow than image #0. The image #0 was deleted a months ago.... and also snow in the mountains not match to Los Angeles. Currently image (#1) show typical Los Angeles. Skyscrapers in the "center" of the photo are not needed. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure why this discussion is here. Is there a proposal somewhere to delete an image? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one has proposed to delete an image. The question is whether the (in my opinion very nice) snowy image due to AlekVT, reproduced here for convenience, should appear in the article.

I think it very much should. The claim that "snow in the mountains not match to Los Angeles" is simply false; it happens every winter, or nearly. It's true that it doesn't happen every day, but so what? It's useful to show a side of the city that readers who don't live in LA may not know about. --Trovatore (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, you don't happen to see any other major city with images off-centering their business districts do you? Of course it's not mandatory but it's highly preferred that the most important element of the image should be clearly centered. Usually the only times where it doesn't is when there is no other good images available, which is not the case here. --Ikon21 (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I quote: "It's true that it doesn't happen every day, but so what? It's useful to show a side of the city that readers who don't live in LA may not know about" - OMG!! This is not second-rate photo in article of Geography of Los Angeles etc. This is main (first) photo in main article of the city. There is no place for curiosities like "It's useful to show a side of the city that readers who don't live in LA may not know about". I am not against skyline and this shot, please find or take another photo without snow, the panorama should look like for Los Angeles, South California not like Montreal in Canada. Photo as a curiosity with snow can be inserted into Climate of Los Angeles or Geography of Los Angeles. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

It does look exactly like Los Angeles does every year. Just because it doesn't fit your preconceived notions doesn't make it any less valid. I think it's a superior photograph in every way than the one there, and should be used, no ifs ands or buts. oknazevad (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. The photo was taken with an zoom. The snow in the picture is artificially approximated. It doesn't look like Los Angeles every year (sorry, only in winter). Let's add a photo with smog, smog in Los Angeles is 100 times more common than snow. Again: this is main (first) photo in main article of the city. There is no place for curiosities like "It's useful to show a side of the city that readers who don't live in LA may not know about". The main picture must to depict Los Angeles - just as it looks throughout the year, not curiosities with approximate and increased snow, snow is not a city icon, most people in the world do not associate snow with Los Angeles. The picture is taken nicely but is too controversial and not suitable for infobox. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Subtropical-man, it's not a curiosity. It's part of the LA that Angelenos know. No one who has lived in LA will be surprised to see that picture. It's very much a part of the Los Angeles that I love. (BTW I'm not sure what you mean by "approximated">) --Trovatore (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

As smog is an element that often obscures and decreases the clarity of the subjects in the image, comparing snow and smog in this context is not appropriate. In this image, the snow does nothing but add an interesting backdrop to the skyline. The image clearly displays the skyline better than any other image available in the commons at the moment and should be used as the main photo. As LA is one of the most well-known cities in the world, an image that might change a reader's stereotypical perception of the city is quite captivating. --Ikon21 (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Trovatore, current photo shows typical Los Angeles. This is Los Angeles (on current photo) - for both, native people and people outside the city. Ikon21, you wrote: "captivating"???? - you made a mistake with place. This is Wikipedia, Wikipedia is encyclopedia, please write your phenomenal and "captivating" theories on the blog. Approximate snow because it looks cool and captivating (...) - sorry, wrong place. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The snow is the city the way it is. Not all the time, but it's a significant view appropriate for the city, and "typical" in the sense that it's similar to views you're used to if you live there. What do you mean "for [...] people outside the city"? We should reinforce their preconceived views? No, that's not what an encyclopedia is for. --Trovatore (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Your arguments are ridiculous, your arguments are: "I want this picture because it looks captivating" and "In winter, there is snow in the mountains around Los Angeles and we have to show it in the main infobox of the city". Sorry, main!!! picture of the city, one of the most well-known cities in the world should be standard and neutral, main photo should show Los Angeles what it is like all year round, without seasonal curiosities/captivating landscapes visible with zoom. Your proposal of photo more suited as curiosity for the tourist website, not encyclopedia, and certainly not as the first main picture. We can discuss to insert a photo into another article, e.g. as a curiosity in "Climate of Los Angeles", it will be a place where you can show snow in winter around Los Angeles. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Back off, Subtropical-man, and consider your tone. You don't get to dictate what pictures appear in this article. Obviously city articles are going to show views of the city that are appealing in some way; we don't put random snapshots even if they're a better statistical sample. --Trovatore (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Take it easy. It does not change the fact that I presented your arguments in the post above. There would be no problem if you want to insert the image in a different place than infobox. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I could agree to putting it in a different spot in the infobox. It shows a different (and important) aspect of the city from any that are there currently, so I think it should be in the infobox, but it doesn't necessarily have to be at the top. Maybe we could have a 1-2-2-2-1 arrangement, with the Echo Park shot at the top, then the existing three rows of two photos, then the Mt Baldy shot at the bottom. --Trovatore (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Subtropical-man, you missed the point. The main reason why me, alongside many editors here, insist of using the snowcapped image is not because of its "captivating-ness" if you will, rather because of the photo's clarity of the subject. The snowcapped image is simply superior in quality to the previous image in nearly all factors. The only reason why the image hasn't been changed so far is because you persist the idea that the image can't be used because it doesn't align with your preconceived stereotypes of the city, which I don't think is a good enough reason not to use the superior quality image. Just like Trovatore said, reinforcing preconceived stereotypes is something that we should all take a step away from. As this discussion has gone on way too long and we all have better things to do than to bicker on a trivial subject, I support the compromise of placing the Mount Baldy image at the bottom of the montage, or perhaps even the 3rd or 4th row.--Ikon21 (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

As of right now, the box of photos at the top right of the article looks just fine, so I don't know what all the fuss is about. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The fuss is about that we have an excellent photo available, that shows a significant aspect of the city not currently represented in the infobox, and I think we should use it. --Trovatore (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

How about a revolving image. Put yours up for three months, then replace it, and so on. No sense in being static: This is L.A., after all. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I could agree to that if others do. --Trovatore (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah of course. As soon as a high quality image of the DTLA skyline comes out (without snow), we can definitely replace it. -Ikon21 (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, no. The snow is specifically what makes it show a significant aspect of the city not currently represented. --Trovatore (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, let's just see what happens in 3 months. -Ikon21 (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

So in the meantime, we're all going to grab our cameras or phones and take some photos we can use, right? (Well, not me; I don't live in the L.A. area any more.) BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move of La

There is a current move request that may be of interest to watchers of this page. Currently LA redirects to Los Angeles. If the request is approved, LA would be a disambiguation page with the content currently at La. See talk:La#Requested move 20 June 2020 --Trovatore (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Trovatore, WP:NOTBURO notwithstanding, this should be at WP:RFD, not WP:RM. John from Idegon (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, why? I'm proposing a move, not a deletion of a redirect. The redirect would have to be deleted for technical reasons, to get out of the way of the move.

In any case, while it would be possible to argue for the other process, it seems to me that this one is adequate for everyone to state their case. --Trovatore (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

Include the total area for the City of Los Angeles.

This was removed on August 12, 2019, by an editor, Shandstorm, who is no longer active on Wikipedia and was making damaging edits to multiple pages. Listing land area and water area, but no total area for a city, appears to be contrary to the convention on other pages for municipalities. Additionally, I believe that this was done purely for the amusement of making Los Angeles and New York City appear to be the same exact size – New York City's total area (including both land and water) is 468 square miles, while Los Angeles' land area (excluding water) is also 468 square miles. 2604:2000:1280:C0AB:8945:89A0:CDCB:4605 (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Could you provide a proper citation to a source which gives the correct area for LA? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The census bureau is the usual source for that, and it should already be in the article, RandomCanadian John from Idegon (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

One entire sub-section for the cannabis industry?

Is a sub-section necessary for the cannabis industry? One or two lines in the /economy/ section would be sufficient in my view. Alcaios (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Cannabis is not a particularly large segment of the Los Angeles economy, and Los Angeles is not a particularly large segment of the cannabis economy (at least, for its size). It's incongruous that we say more about cannabis in this section than we do about fashion or aerospace. --Trovatore (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Change "The strike-slip San Andreas Fault system is at the boundary between the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate, and is vulnerable to the "big one", a potentially large and damaging event after the San Francisco earthquake in 1906." to "The strike-slip San Andreas Fault system is at the boundary between the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate. This makes the Los Angeles basin vulnerable to the "big one", a potentially large and damaging event similar to the San Francisco earthquake in 1906." 2601:644:8B00:DEF0:816D:43F:65D7:D8C8 (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done with more elaboration. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Weather

The record has since been broken as of today. It reached 121 in Woodland Hills, although this article mentions downtown LA as holding the hottest on record. See here: https://twitter.com/ArizonaNewsnet/status/1302725034243366912/photo/1. Can someone please edit the article? I would but could not find any sources that were not subscription-free. KardashianFan (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The weather stats under the Canoga Park section seem wrong. The hottest month section lists summer temperatures in the 70's and 80's. As stated previously, we hit 121 a few weeks ago. - signed by anon IP

Census 2020 data

Los Angeles may have 4 million residents, but the Census 2020 has to complete their surveys and collection of data before they make it official. Los Angeles is one of the state's/nation's/world's most culturally diverse cities, the article doesn't mention Native Americans are among the city's demographic profile with 2-5% of the city has various degrees of Native American/Alaskan Native/Latin American Indian (esp. from the Mexican states of Oaxaca and Chiapas) ancestry or tribal affiliation. And 44-49% of Los Angeles city and county populations each are of Latinx and Hispanic origin, the first time this much since 1850 when California was admitted as a state after annexation by the USA as a result of the Mexican-American war. 2605:E000:100D:C571:5DBA:17AB:D1CF:EB47 (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit requests for religion section

I'm not permitted to edit the article so I have two edit requests for under "Religion": 1) referring to the number of Jews in LA: "(490,000 in city proper)" needs to be removed - it's not only not cited in the reference but very clearly wrong - that would mean the city is about 12% Jewish when the demographic data cited in this article says it's only 3%.

2): "Perhaps owing to the fact of its founding by Franciscan friars of Roman Catholicism, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles leads the largest archdiocese in the country." The first part of the sentence before the comma should be removed. There's no evidence of that being the case in the cited reference and any source will tell you that obviously the reason for the large Catholic population is primarily because of the large Latino (and Filipino, etc) community, not because the city happened to be founded by friars more than 200 years prior. Thanks so much! Pixinguinha1 (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. There were other parts that needed to be trimmed for more neutrality and keep it to basic facts. oknazevad (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Map

Where is the good map showing all the neighborhoods of Los Angeles? It's very, very, very ridiculous and unencyclopedic that there isn't one in the current version of this article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Los Angeles with Mount Baldy.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Name

The History section mentions the earlier names "iyáangẚ or Yaanga" and "El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles", but doesn't state when the current version of the name was adopted. JezGrove (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Expansion?

Given that LA is the second largest city in the US, I'm somewhat surprised that this page is so short! There is no interactive map like you see on the city pages for NYC or Boston and the page seems a bit lacking on references (only 212 references, while pages for other large cities like Philly, Chicago, Cleveland, Indianapolis, and Houston have around 350-360 references). The "culture" and "history" sections are also very brief for a city with LA's size, history, and culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.186.211.134 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to contribute :-) --Trovatore (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Demographics: Change percentage of entrepreneurs to reflect new data, better definition.

Change "Per 1996 data, the rate for self-employed entrepreneurs in Los Angeles is more than 66%." to "Per 2019 Census American Community Survey data, the rate for self-employed unincorporated business owners in Los Angeles is 4.4%". Update citation 121 to reflect data source for the change: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=B08128_009&tid=ACSDT1Y2019.B08128. Aj90404 (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I've taken that phrase out, since it has no relevance in the race and ethnicity section. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Lack of good map

The lack of a good map in this article that shows all the neighborhoods of Los Angeles is very, very, very ridiculous, unencyclopedic, and embarrassing. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

If you know of a suitable map that is free to use on Wikipedia, please upload it to Commons or at least point to it. - Donald Albury 20:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Article - how to pronounce?

FYI - this might be a useful reference...

"Why do we pronounce our place names this way?" - Feb 23, 2021 LA Times article

• https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-02-23/los-angeles-why-do-we-pronounce-place-names-this-way

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This one from 2011 is much better. That 2021 article says the 1952 "jury" was "hung", which is contradicted by the 2011 one, and here and here. I just expanded the article based on the latter. Nardog (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Language in lede

I made some changes to language in the lede that I thought was unclear. The changes have been reverted, so I figured I would ask for more input here.

The sentence in question is in the fourth and final paragraph:

In 2018, Los Angeles was ranked as the most powerful city[25] and fourth-richest city[26] in the world, ahead of New York City.

Where source 25 is: http://www.citymayors.com/economics/most-powerful-cities-world.html

And source 26 is: http://www.citymayors.com/economics/richest-cities-world.html

I'm not a fan of the language "most powerful" or "richest". In this case (upon examination of the source), "most powerful" means "most purchasing power", which I do not think is an intuitive reading of "most powerful" (which itself is nebulous). "Richest" seems to me somewhat less problematic - the source shows this means "highest wages and salaries" - which I think is a little more intuitive but still confusing.

I changed the language in the lede to match what the sources actually say in a way I thought was more clear. Those edits were reverted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Los_Angeles&diff=1033904675&oldid=1033636606

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Los_Angeles&diff=1033905556&oldid=1033904675

Curious what others think about this. I was hoping to find more concise language to use, but I think the current language obfuscates the facts. The edit summary on one of the reverts mentioned that "[i]f readers want clarity on the rankings, they can follow the sources", but I don't think that's what sources are for. I don't think readers should have to click through to sources to know what article is actually saying.

--Llakais 16:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Definitely agree with Llakais about "most powerful". That makes it sound like LA has a band of hoplites that could bend San Diego to their will any time they felt like it.

"Richest" is not quite as bad, but sounds more like wealth than income. Wikkedout's comment in the edit summary that users can follow the reference links if they want to know what it really means is frankly unacceptable. Big, big WP:TROUT to Wikkedout for that. I hope I don't have to explain why; that's just totally out of bounds. --Trovatore (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with Llakais. In particular, "most powerful" misrepresents the metric being ranked, even if the source labelled the table that way. - Donald Albury 20:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd leave them both out. Who says that "citymayors.com" is a reliable source? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's a either a good source or a good claim. The rephrase is an improvement, but just taking it out completely is even more of an improvement. oknazevad (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Updated population

When will the 2021 population estimation be released? There had always been one yearly until 2020 Hgh1985 (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

In about 11 months. US Census Bureau population estimates have been released in or around July each year for the preceeding year. There is no point in releasing estimates for census years, such as 2020. The Census Bureau is releasing the results of the 2020 Census, although I don't know how long it will take to release the more detailed data. - Donald Albury 19:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request re: info box

Hi, Please place a tag or some sort of marker next to 2020 census recorded population of LA that there are legitimate concerns the population was undercounted. Rather than 3.8m, it is likely closer to 4.2m

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-08-30/los-angeles-redistricting-population-drop-census-undercount-fears

Thanks, 76.168.125.28 (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Added edit in History section

I added this edit: "As a consequence of World War II, suburban growth, and population density, many amusement parks were built and operated in this area.[17] An example is Beverly Park, which was located at the corner of Beverly Boulevard and La Cienega before being closed and substituted by the Beverly Center.[18]"

Beverly Park (Amusement Park) is a draft page awaiting completion. LIUCLisa05 (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The draft page Beverly Park has been accepted and published. LIUCLisa05 (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Map

The lack of a good map in this article that shows all the neighborhoods of Los Angeles is very, very, very ridiculous, unencyclopedic, and embarrassing. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Natalieweckesser.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2022

In the first sentence, change "referred to its initials L.A." to "referred to by its initials L.A." Calvenable (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

City population not urban population

In the population section it incorrectly reads "Urban" for the 3.8 million population, which is incorrect, 3.8 million is the correct population within city limits, but not the urban area. I tried to change it to "City" instead of "Urban" but the format completely messed up.

Hgh1985 (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Use of semicolons in infobox image captions

Again, please read the article about the semicolon. This would prevent many of your misunderstandings. Semicolons cannot be used only when there are commas in the list. Rather, it is especially recommended in this case, but it is not forbidden when it is not. Many extremely frequently edited articles about cities such as New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, and others also have long had semicolons in their captions, and no one thought of removing them, or at least no consensus was found to do so.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

From MOS:SEMICOLON: Semicolons are used in addition to commas to separate items in a listing, when commas alone would result in confusion. (Emphasis added.) When there are no commas, semicolons should not be used. This is from the Wikipedia manual of style, so it's conforming to house style, which may not be applicable elsewhere but is correct here. oknazevad (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"When there are no commas, semicolons should not be used."

I couldn't find this statement in your linked page.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"Alone" states plainly that the use of semicolons is in the presence of commas. And please indent correctly. oknazevad (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

No, it states that it is mandatory to use semicolons instead of commas for separation when using only commas would result in confusing, not that it is forbidden to use semicolons when there are no commas.--

Semicolons are only used to separate list items when commas are insufficient. Commas are not insufficient here. There's no reason to use semicolons. oknazevad (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

"Semicolons are only used to separate list items when commas are insufficient."

No, as I said, they are mandatory in this case, but this fact alone does not automatically mean that it would be prohibited or inappropriate otherwise.

"Commas are not insufficient here."

Right, that's why I said in an edit summary that it's not necessary in this case. But again, that doesn't mean that it's wrong.

"There's no reason to use semicolon."

As I already said in an edit summary, it would make the captions more clear because you recognize faster that a new image description follows now. You no longer would have to think first whether this is really the case or whether a new information is coming that still belongs to the same image.

As I said, the articles about New York City, London, Paris, Tokyo and many more also contain semicolons in their image captions. Not because it's necessary, but because it makes it more comfortable to read.--

Question:

Can anyone include literature section on this article? If so, can you research and include books written by LA authors or set in Los Angeles?

Thanks, --2601:205:C002:D1E0:D11:AA22:BE7:46C1 (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

“Atheism and other secular beliefs are also common, as the city is the largest in the Western U.S. Unchurched Belt.”

According to the link to the Unchurched Belt, that term refers to the Pacific Northwest states of Washington and Oregon, not California. As only 25% of the population Los Angeles claims no religion (and that isn’t all atheist), I think saying atheism is also common in LA is pushing it.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:B004:302F:C840:4C5B (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2022

on subdivision_type and subdivision_name so People don't get confused on the city county the flag contents is on all L.A. county city and the L.A. county should have the L.A. county flag so the can not be a confusion for visuals.

74.62.14.55 (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Trovatore (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2022 adding flags on the subdivision so people don't get confused with Los Angeles County and it won't be confusing as well

2603:8001:2902:64F4:184A:B865:6DCE:1133 (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2022

Add in the first description that the official name of LA is the City of Los Angeles. 2604:3D08:6286:7500:AD08:377C:4597:2898 (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Lack of good map

The lack of a good map in this article that shows all the neighborhoods of Los Angeles is very, very, very ridiculous, unencyclopedic, and embarrassing. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The size of said map is also a problem as it is causing the text on the article become misaligned. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You're mistaken. There is no such map as I have described in the current version of this article! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request re: info box

Most city info boxes include ranking next to metro area population in the city info box. Please consider adding it to this page. So, instead of:

population_urban = 12,150,996

population_metro = 13,131,431

population_blank1_title = CSA

population_blank1 = 18,351,929

These lines would be:

population_urban = 12,150,996 (2nd)

population_metro = 13,131,431 (2nd)

population_blank1_title = CSA

population_blank1 = 18,351,929 (2nd)

References

Homeless

Some reference about Homeless community should be added: Count found 57,794 people sleeping in shelters, vehicles or on the streets of Los Angeles County https://argonautnews.com/volunteers-needed-for-2018-homeless-count/

Edit to "Environmental issues" section

Within the first paragraph under "Environmental issues," please add after the last sentence ("...which holds in the exhausts from road vehicles, airplanes, locomotives, shipping, manufacturing, and other sources.") the following:

"According to the 2016 World Health Organization Global Urban Ambient Air Pollution Database, the annual average PM2.5 concentration in 2016 was 12 micrograms per cubic meter, which is 2 micrograms above the recommended limit of the WHO Air Quality Guidelines for the annual mean PM2.5." User:Arod59881 22:09, 3 December 2018‎

References

Schwa vs "ih" vowel

So I think I had misunderstood Nardog's point — true; I hadn't noticed that this was part of a transcription specifically for BrE pronunciations. I still think it's a bit misleading to put an /ɪ/ there. As I understand it, /ɪ/ is the vowel in the word "big", and I don't think even in BrE, Los Angeles is pronounced with that vowel. It's pronounced with a reduced version of that vowel, but the phonemically most relevant point is not its precise value but simply the fact that it's reduced.

If that isn't true, I wonder if Nardog could provide a minimal pair for reduced /ɪ/ versus schwa in British English? --Trovatore (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

A couple of other random thoughts on the subject:

• Why do we have a BrE pronunciation for LA in the first place? My guess is that it's primarily to accommodate the "leez" pronunciation. The other one is not different enough from the American pronunciation to be worth calling out separately. So maybe just leave it out, putting something like "BrE also UK: /lɒs ˈændʒɪliːz/"? I could live with the /ɪ/ in that one, I suppose.
• Why is /ᵻ/ "deprecated"? It seems very useful.

--Trovatore (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Lenin/Lennon, edition/addition, bizarre/bazaar, illusion/allusion... See Weak vowel merger. Nardog (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, OK, good answer. So I come back to "Why is /ᵻ/ 'deprecated'?" --Trovatore (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Because e.g. battleship /ˈbætəlʃɪp/ contains an unreduced /ɪ/ that at the same time is unaccented (I'm not buying into the "secondary stress" theory when it allegedly occurs after primary stress. English isn't Russian and full vowels are allowed outside of stressed syllables [as they are even in Russian, but to a more limited degree]). It forms a near-minimal pair with battle it /ˈbætəlᵻt/. Sources (apart from a few exceptions) do a poor job distinguishing between those two vowels. This means that we couldn't be as consistent in transcribing /ᵻ/ in comparison with /ɒ/ or other diaphonemes. If you read Help:IPA/English carefully, you'll see that we follow Longman Pronunciation Dictionary in treating /ɪ/ as both full and reduced.

There's also the issue of /ᵻ/ vs. /ə/. When comparing New Zealand English to RP in his Accents of English (p. 607), Wells calls the RP pronunciation [ɪnˌvɪzɪˈbɪlɪtɪ] old-fashioned, with [ɪnˌvɪzəˈbɪlətɪ] being the mainstream pronunciation in 1982. That was 40 years ago. There are many instances of orthographic ⟨i⟩, ⟨e⟩ etc. that aren't pronounced with a phonetic [ɪ] (nor [ɪ̈]) but with [ə] in English accents without the merger. Brits can hear the difference between the latter two, and it's just like the difference between /ɨ/ and /ə/ in Romanian (which are separate phonemes in that language - hence the slashes, obviously). [ˈlɛnɪ̈n] is still interpreted as Lenin and not Lennon and it is just as likely to be pronounced [ˈlɛnɪn]. [ˈlɛnən] can, AFAIK, only stand for Lennon in most places in England. [ɪ̈] is an unaccented allophone of /ɪ/ (not in all cases - see above), not an allophone of /ə/ (this is why torches has two phonemic forms /ˈtɔːtʃɪz, -əz/ in RP, with the one with /ɪ/ being more common, whereas tortures has only one: /ˈtɔːtʃəz/). This is where RP differs from GA. Nowadays invisibility is /ɪnˌvɪzəˈbɪlətiː/ in RP, with a final FLEECE as in NZE /ənˌvəzəˈbələtiː/. But it's inconsequential to my point, as is the fact that in AoE, Wells ascribes initial secondary stress to invisibility (so [ˌɪnvɪzɪˈbɪlɪtɪ] etc.), rather than ascribing it to the second syllable, as in LPD. The point is that the first two syllables feature an unreduced KIT vowel as, AFAIK, all instances of the prefix in- do. I'd be happy with /ɪnvɪzəˈbɪlətiː/, with no secondary stress at all (Duden-style, that's how they deal with it in their IPA transcriptions of German) and ⟨iː⟩ for final FLEECE (as Lindsey says, HAPPY has never existed. If it's a separate phoneme at all, it's morpheme/word-final /ᵻ/, which is too abstract for any mainstream (dictionary or otherwise) type of transcription).

Why do we have a BrE pronunciation for LA in the first place? Look at how the Los part is transcribed. The GA pronunciation has the lot-cloth split, which is extremely old-fashioned in BrE. Also, Los Angeles is not some remote place in Montana. Brits often talk about it (at least in comparison with other places in the US) and it has a well-established pronunciation (pronunciations, in fact) in BrE. I suppose you could argue that ⟨os⟩ never stands for /ɔːs/ in those varieties with BrE that don't have the lot-cloth split and that's true. Sol505000 (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2022

Are you going to add a section called Shopping Malls, plus with more sources? That is because Los Angeles has more retail centers than any other American city. Also please add a list of malls that opened in L.A. with chronological order to dates and what size is each mall are. — 2600:1010:B117:9432:F821:D0D5:5F65:1AAA (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RealAspects (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Government Council

Who are the “Council” members and what areas do they govern? Camdens44 (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The city council is the city's legislative body. It governs the entire are within the city's legal boundaries. I'm guessing you are not from the United States based on these questions, as these are pretty common elements of local government in the United States. oknazevad (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you thinking, perhaps, about the commission form of city government, which originally assigned each commissioner responsibilty for one or more particular city departments? Cities in the US that still have a "city commission" rarely divide up duties that way anymore. Donald Albury 14:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposing replacing either Venice Beach or more so Echo Park in the collage with Hollywood Blvd

I'd prefer to seek consensus for this first before a BOLD edit. I think that more people would recognize Hollywood Blvd, especially the part around the Chinese Theater, than Echo Park or less so Venice Beach. Los Angeles is known worldwide to pretty much everybody outside the city at least partially for its home in the entertainment world, and more people think of Hollywood Blvd than Echo Park when it comes to the city itself and the most popular places within it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hollywood is already represented by the sign in the montage, which is far more iconic and representative than the blvd. Given that, we shouldn’t over represent one neighborhood in the montage, especially when dealing with a city as vast as LA. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tree Map of Employment by Industries in Los Angeles County, Ca (2015).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

"Luoshanji" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Luoshanji has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 28 § Luoshanji until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Is Los Angeles a city or a county?

Los Angeles is both a city and a county. The residents of Los Angeles County need to avoid confusing people. I can try to change the name of this article but it is likely beyond my knowledge of Wikipedia. Sam Tomato (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not get far. This article is protected. Sam Tomato (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

And just to be clear, the name of the City of Los Angeles is not Los Angeles, look at the official website. Sam Tomato (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

There's a city called "Los Angeles", and there's a county called "Los Angeles County". There is no county called simply "Los Angeles", though if you look at a list of counties, they'll usually leave off the "County" part as redundant.

The term "City of Los Angeles" refers to Los Angeles as a formal entity, as opposed to a population center. --Trovatore (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2023

Most of Los Angeles's immigrant population were born in Mexico, El Salvador, Philippines, Guatemala and Korea. Add this information to the demographics section.

Source: https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/731/docs/LOSANGELES_web.pdf 2607:FB91:321:4D27:AC39:8391:8023:7F0B (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cherrell410^{(t · c)} 16:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2023

Britannica states the city has more Koreans, Filipinos, Iranians, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Cambodians living outside their native countries than anywhere else in the world and a greater concentration of indigenous Native Americans—most of whom were born in states other than California—than any other county in the United States. Add this information to demographics and race and ethnicity section.

Source: https://www.britannica.com/place/Los-Angeles-California/City-layout#ref10136 103.164.138.55 (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: needs a better source than WP:BRITANNICA. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Better place for crime section

Crime statistics are not demographics, so it doesn't belong in the demographics section. Ideally, the information about crime would be grouped with police, and put in the government section. Or police + crime could be its own section.

Also, I noticed the LAPD is being used as. source for the numbers of gangs in LA. However, the LAPD's gang database has been called into question [3] and definitely should not be considered a reliable source. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Someone apparently fulfilled your request for Crime to be its own section, but without removing the existing subsection in Demographics. I have removed the subsection now. Perception312 (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Initial description contradictory

Most populous city; second-most populous city.

Need to clarify the definition of city to avoid contradiction (I.e. city metro area vs. city limits) Jzallie (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Los Angeles vegetation - Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2023

Add the official plant of Los Angeles is Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), to the Los Angeles page. I would like this to be added to the vegetation section. A source can be found here Matthewgraham027 (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2023 (2)

Los Angeles has the largest Native American population. Add to demographics section.

Source: https://www.visitcalifornia.com/experience/explore-native-american-culture-california/#:~:text=Los%20Angeles%20has%20the%20largest,Kitanemuk%2C%20Serrano%2C%20and%20Tataviam. 91.192.81.61 (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: I doubt that this website should be considered a reliable source for such claims. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2023

Spanish, Vietnamese, Hmong, Cantonese, Tagalog, Korean, Armenian, Russian, Farsi, Khmer and Hebrew are the most common non-English languages spoken in L.A. Add this information to the demographics section.

Source: https://www.britannica.com/place/Los-Angeles-California/City-layout#ref10136 91.192.81.61 (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: I think that's too many languages to write that they "are the most common". Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2024

Change "During Mexican rule, Governor Pío Pico made Los Angeles, Alta California's regional capital." to "During Mexican rule, Governor Pío Pico made Los Angeles the regional capital of Alta California." This is the second sentence of the Mexican Rule section of the History section of the Los Angeles page. The comma between "Los Angeles" and "Alta California" seems grammatically incorrect, and, even if it isn't, the sentence reads better with this change. I know it's picky, I'm sorry! Sgd1441 (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Peterlaxamazing (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Lede should start with "city in a country", not details

Both my edits, on Philly and on LA lede were reverted, first without any explanation, but soon enough next rv had some, I see it, really superficial explanation on both instances. My edit was about following almost universal encyclopedic standard where article on a city, town and/or village starts with "Foo city/town/village is a city/town/village in a Foo-country" and follows it with all necessary and relevant minutiae. (See Britannica; Los Angeles A to Z, etc) These two articles follow a pattern that is turned on its head. The explanation is that readers supposedly already now its a city in the US. Well, readers know many things, but we still write about it in a proper way - this is not a reason to mention the fact that a city is in a certain country only after we buried it in third or fourth row with bunch of detailed info, which is further explanation for these reverts - "go into details" says User:Reywas92. They also claim my edit is repetitive, which is really unwarranted claim, first because I checked next few sentences to avoid obvious repetition, and after all, it is repetitive anyway, even without my edits it repeats statements and info because it is hard to avoid it. Insistence on status quo at any cost, no matter how light edit which follows fairly usual pattern is, appears to be superficial. Point is that articles on any city on the planet should start exactly like an article on the New York City (which I did not edit) - Foo-city is the city in the Foo-country. This fact should not be buried in the third or fourth line of the article with half a dozen of other administrative names, and the reader should not be forced to "go into the details" to find information about the country first. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence says that it's in the US state of California. I think that's soon enough to mention what country it's in. The first sentence doesn't have to follow some pure boilerplate form.

That said, I think we can happily lose officially the City of Los Angeles. As far as I know all California cities have a "city of" form (sometimes it sounds kind of silly, like "city of Culver City"), but these are not the name of the city so much as the name of the governmental entity, and I don't think they're informative enough to put in the first sentence.

If we dropped the "city of" part we would get to "US" faster -- Santasa99, would you find that an improvement? --Trovatore (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I would be happy with the link to United States article in the first sentence; not US state or some other complicated way of describing it. I mean, with all of yours and concerns raised by the reverting editor taken into consideration, it would not be some kind of gargantuan work to reconfigure first para in the lede to get a first sentence look more like one on NYC, and still retain all other existing info. It wouldn't change anything to give a reader a clear information about the city and a country first, without forcing them to read through myriad of administrative divisions and detailed info only to learn what is the country. (It shouldn't be of any relevance for us if city is Berlin, LA, or Tuzla in Turkey or Tuzla in Bosnia). All being said, I will accept everything agreed upon here (and I certainly don't wish to make it heavy experience to anyone willing to discuss it). ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I have pretty much zero sympathy for any wish to link specifically to United States in preference to US state. I don't think we really need to tell readers that US states are in the United States, and there is no immediate need to go to the article on the United States. --Trovatore (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Just by the way, expect pushback whenever you refer to US states as "administrative divisions". --Trovatore (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Having in mind that English language is "lingua franca" of our time, and thus English Wikipedia project practically international project, I would prefer standard encyclopedic description of the United States' cities and settlements, where a settlement is immediately linked to a country, regardless of what anyone can think readers should or should not know in advance. If we can have New York article properly opened with a statement "New York is the largest city in the United States. It is located...." there is no reason not to have similar opening statement on every other article about settlements in any country.

I can't speak about "pushback" on administrative division when considering US states, although it sounds terribly strange (read terrifying) to hear that and think about its implications; I always thought Americans are terribly patriotic (read frighteningly) about US but never nationalistic or tribal regarding their feelings of belonging to particular "state" - that's truly frighting to outsider like myself who lived through nationalism and ethnic lunacy of "blut und boden" ideology.

But now, after your initial post, I do feel your reverts have lot more in common with "pushback" for the sake of a pushback than with possibility that my edit was potentially harmful for lede's integrity and readability. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Point of history — I did not revert you. And I too am anti-nationalist. US states are not nations, but they are not "administrative divisions" either; they share sovereignty with the national government

My judgment is that, when you think of LA, you think of California before you think of the United States, and I think this is likely true worldwide. But even for cities in much less known states, the "U.S. state" formulation seems to be pretty standard — check out Albuquerque for example. If you really want to shift to a standard of mentioning the United States first after the city name, in all US city articles, you've got a much bigger job than this article. The NYC article looks like the outlier (from the small sample I've checked), and that one might be just because it's the biggest city in the US. --Trovatore (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I know that you did not rv my edits, that was Raywas92. If I am correct, you did some mild corrections taking my concern into consideration, and that was cool, I appreciate it. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

What I mean by repetitive is that you edit began with "is the city in the United States." which was followed by "L.A. is the most populous city in the U.S. state of California". So now "city" is repeated and the U.S. is repeated. This is not an efficient way to write. Even for smaller places, there's no need to start with a short, choppy sentence that doen't really inform the reader. Reywas92^Talk 22:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

That's easily fixable, without putting much or any effort. Actually, even though not being nowhere near native speaker of English, I still have reasonably high sensibility for a proper semantics:

• current is a two sentences para including cumbersome break with a semicolon in the second - "Los Angeles, often referred to by its initials L.A., is the most populous city in the U.S. state of California. With roughly 3.9 million residents within the city limits as of 2020, Los Angeles is the second-most populous city in the United States, behind only New York City; it is the commercial, financial and cultural center of the Southern California region."
• and here's mine - Los Angeles, often referred to by its initials L.A., officially the City of Los Angeles, is the city in the United States. L.A. is the most populous city in the U.S. state of California, and with roughly 3.9 million residents within the city limits as of 2020, Los Angeles is the second-most populous city in the United States, behind only New York City. It is the commercial, financial and cultural center of the Southern California region.

Any awkwardness could be easily fixed, like repetitive mention of its name or second mention of "in the United States" that could be replaced with a "in the country". ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately, this is a long discussion about one user's preference, and it has not built any consensus for changing Wikipedia's standard way of writing the lede in these articles about U.S. cities. Also, to User:Santasa99's edit summary reverting my revert on Philadelphia, I assumed it was a test edit or perhaps a "drive-by" edit, and User:Reywas92's edit summary was exactly what I ought to have said. BCorr|Брайен 21:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Concur with BCorr, Trovatore, Reywas92, etc. User:Santasa99's version of the lead sentence was terrible. The longstanding WP style of writing the lead sentence in terms of what actually makes the city significant (i.e., most populous city in the state, most important city in the region, county seat of its county, etc.) is much more readable than leading with the fact that the city happens to be in a particular country. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not particularly against most of the above arguments per se, except maybe Bcorr claim that it's "one user's preference" - it's maybe here and now, but I could point to myriads of articles, besides NYC, which open with immediate mention of a country in as many combinations in terms of formulation - but your reply really left me perplexed.. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

But I have noticed that US settlement articles in most cases don't mention United States at all in lede. I find that unencyclopedic, I know that it is unencyclopedic. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

"Encyclopedic" and "unencylopedic" are overly general terms, and difficult to define. One might find it "unencyclopedic" to focus on a overly descriptive technical descriptions in the lede instead of focusing on the most significant facts relevant to the topic. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Close to tropical climate

@Uness232: I don’t think it’s correct to say that the city is a few degrees close to a tropical climate because the average temperature isn’t the sole criterion according to the Köppen climate classification. A true tropical climate has humid summers with plenty of precipitation against dry and virtually rainless winters, which is the exact opposite compared to Los Angeles’s Mediterranean climate. You may say that places like Orlando, Hong Kong, São Paulo or Brisbane are short of having a true tropical climate because they all have humid subtropical climates with a tropical precipitation pattern as well as a lot of tropical vegetation and fail to qualify only on average temperature in the coldest month(s), but definitely not for a place like Los Angeles which is at least a desert far from the tropics.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kiril Simeonovski The sole definition of a tropical climate according to Köppen is all months being above 18C, and the climate not being B type. There is no requirement for tropical climates to have humid summers or dry winters (which is why the As dry-summer tropical savanna type exists, for example near somewhere like Lanai City), and these climates can also border arid ones, like São Tomé. Indeed, LA is only a few degrees away from being classified the same way as Lanai City or São Tomé, and would feel a lot like those places if it wasn't for its slight nighttime chill.

Of course, from a genetic climate class perspective, these climates have nothing to do with each other, but from an effective perspective (which is what Köppen is based on), exceptional situations in different airmass environments can cancel-out, causing similar results.

Also, LA is sub-humid to semi-arid, not really close to being a desert in any climate classification sense. Uness232 (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Uness232: That’s outright incorrect. According to Köppen, the definitions for the three tropical climates are as follows:

• Tropical rainforest climate (Af): precipitation in all months greater than 60 mm;
• Tropical monsoon climate (Am): precipitation in driest month less than 60 mm but greater than ${\textstyle 100-\left({\frac {\text{Total Annual Precipitation (mm)}}{25}}\right)}$; and
• Tropical savanna climate (Aw/As): precipitation in driest month less than 60 mm and less than ${\textstyle 100-\left({\frac {\text{Total Annual Precipitation (mm)}}{25}}\right)}$, and total annual precipitation between 700 mm and 1,000 mm.

With 362 mm, Los Angeles fails all three by a long shot. Note that Culiacán qualifies temperature-wise for a tropical climate, but it’s considered a B type even though it has total annual precipitation greater by 300 mm than Los Angeles, which means that Los Angeles would have most definitely been a B type had it qualified based on temperature. All this is based merely on climate definition, not even considering the fact that there’s absolutely no tropical vegetation native to Los Angeles (those palm trees were artificially introduced and require irrigation efforts to survive, with the only native palm species being the desert fan palm).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you're both skipping the fact that this statement is WP:OR, since there's no source actually making the claim. Speculation about whether it might be true or not is irrelevant. It should be removed. -- Fyrael (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kiril Simeonovski The Aw/As boundary makes no mention of annual precipitation, which essentially makes all non-B and non-f/m tropical climates Aw/As. I don't know where you're getting those rules from, but WP:RS on this issue are clear. However, I do see your point about how changing the temperature would cause the climate type to change, making these hypotheticals problematic in general if not for LA only. The vegetation point is irrelevant though; Istanbul has no natural subtropical flora, but it is humid subtropical (or Mediterranean if 40mm is used for the f/s boundary, but that's still a subtropical climate). Köppen types are only approximations, they have their problems.

@Fyrael Technically it is not OR, the source is just at the wrong place and should be the rules of the Köppen classification. However, looking at the claim again, I can see how it is more or less meaningless; after that reconsideration, I am okay with it being removed. Uness232 (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Lack of map showing Los Angeles neighborhoods

Where is the good map showing all the neighborhoods of Los Angeles? It's very, very, very ridiculous and unencyclopedic that there isn't one in the current version of this article. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

An example of such a map: https://imgcap.capturetheatlas.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/neighborhood-map-los-angeles.jpg 98.123.38.211 (talk) 02:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

What is the copyright status of that image? Please read WP:COPYOTHERS, which explains how copyright law affects what we can use in Wikipedia. Donald Albury 12:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)