Jump to content

Talk:Greater Los Angeles: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Page move?: Tentatively agreeable towards a name change, but not quite at the moment.
Line 138: Line 138:
will be put in them.
will be put in them.
:We still need to wait [[User:House1090|House1090]] ([[User talk:House1090|talk]]) 05:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
:We still need to wait [[User:House1090|House1090]] ([[User talk:House1090|talk]]) 05:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

*Tentatively agreeable towards a name change, but not quite at the moment. As I understand it, SoCal and TorriTorri are proposing to disambiguate "Greater Los Angeles Area" to a page that would read something like:

::<blockquote>'''Greater Los Angeles''' may refer to:

::* the [[Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana metropolitan area]] consisting of Los Angeles, Ventura and Orange Counties.
::* the [[Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside metropolitan area]], the combined statistical area that includes Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.</blockquote>

I'm not exactly clear on the necessity for a disambiguation of this sort, if this is what you are intending. As I understand it, the [[Los Angeles metropolitan area]] article was initially developed by House to differentiate the immediate LA area as designated by the US Census from [[Inland Empire (California)]]. At the time, I did not think that article was necessary, as all that article's pertinent information could be contained in this one, but after he created it he quit trying to remove information related to the IE from this article so I did not care if it existed.

I do not at the moment see the necessity for disambiguation, but I could be made agreeable with moving this article to "Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside metropolitan area" if there were also a broader consensus for moving the current LA area article to "Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana metropolitan area" and the Inland Empire article to "Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario metropolitan area," as only then would we be using consistent naming conventions.[[User:Amerique| Amerique]]<sup><small><font color="DarkRed">[[User_talk:Amerique|dialectics]]</font></small></sup> 05:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:59, 12 February 2010

Inland Empire Cities moved from the LA template

The IE has its own template because the IE is not a region but a metro! I had removed these cities because the IE has its own, the LA template should focus more on the cities on the LA-Orange County-Ventura Area. And now SB is a main city just like Santa Ana, Long Beach, Riverside, SB is not thought of as a suburb but a city. House1090 (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that I removed it to my old version, but i am thinking of creating a template of ALL of SoCal including San Diego and Imperial counties in stead of a Greater LA template (but the LA and IE templates will still exist just not the Greater LA) since wikipedia and the US Censes goes by Metro Area NOT Combined Metro Area. Please write your comments. Thanx- House1090 (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the template I was talking above about all SoCal.

Template:Southern California House1090 (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • FYI, House1090 is the same guy as User:Ie909, discussed in the "Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario" section above, who for some reason thinks the IE is not a part of the GLA area. If there is no other opposition to removing the IE from the GLAA template and related articles I will not continue to revert him. Ameriquedialectics 02:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay Amerique I am not trying to start an edit war so I will not revert you. And for YOU FYI I do know that the IE is a part of the Grater LA but since there is an IE template the Greater LA Template should be for the LA Metro only not the Gr.LA area, there is very little about the LA-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metro here, so the template should go to that metro. House1090 (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to say that what I am trying to do is move the Template:Greater Los Angeles Area to the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metro. template beacuse that metro has very little information here on wiki. The Inland Empire has its own template, so we should just change the G. LA template to the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metro. template. House1090 (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, the GLAA template, as far as I can tell, was developed for the GLAA article. The subject of the GLAA article properly concerns the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside Combined Statistical Area. But so far as the info box for this article uses MSA as opposed to CSA parameters, House may feel justified in reducing "Greater LA" to just "the LA area." Perhaps someone with more coding proficiency can rectify the info box problem. Until then, I leave it to the community. Ameriquedialectics 16:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am Also saying that the GLAA Template Does not include all the cities in the IE like Palm Springs, Barstow, Needles, Indio, Yucca Valley, Victorville, ect. I bet you User:Amerique have not even heared half of these cities, now thats another reason why the GLAA Template should become the LAA Template. The IEMA Template includes all cities and towns in its own metro while the GLAA does not it only includes all of the cities in the LA metro and only some of the IE cities (way less than half). There is way more reasons why the GLAA Template should become the LAA Template. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am making the move because alot of the IE cities are missing more than half to be exact and also it does not include SB as a mojor city when it clearly is! The IE template includes all of its cities, so this template should be the LA-OC-VC Template since it includes all the cities in LA-OC-VC (ventura county). If you dissagree with my edit please write it down here and we will have a discussion please dont revert until you explain your reason here and we come up with an answer. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted to prior, default consensus version. Add some more IE cities, if you'd like. Ameriquedialectics 21:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amerique, Amerique, why dont you? I took the time to REMAKE the IE template and remove the IE cities so the IE can have its own template, and if you want the IE to be included inthe LA Template then do it your self BUT until then do not revert my edit because it will lead to some false information. Now it is useless to have them merged the IE is its own metro (MSA), so is LA-OC (MSA), wiki and the US censes go by the MSA not the Combined metro area because if they did the IE would not be the 14th largest metro, but because it is it needs its own template....the IE is important so is the LA-OC metro thats why the each should have their own template, you know I'm right! itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So why not create a LA area template rather than reduce "Greater LA" to just LA/OC/VC? Ameriquedialectics 00:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because I all ready created it but you keep on changing it to GLAA when thier is no need for such a template! itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
House, I'm being as patient with you as I can. Why don't you run off and start arbitrarily removing adjacent counties from Template:SF Bay Area, Template:Chicagoland or Template:New_York_metropolitan_area? Those editors over there I'm sure will really appreciate your help. Ameriquedialectics 01:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay Amerique, I agree we have to work together, how about we make the GLAA template to LA-OC template we also change the SoCal Template and make it into the Southland Template, since the LA/OC and the IE metros are seperated thier all ready. I think that would be a great idea. Dont you? itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid not. GLA naturally includes the OC, IE and VC. Reality is on my side. Ameriquedialectics 01:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well thats what Im trying to do, Just take off San Diego and change the picture is all we/I have to do, that way LA/OC and the Southland will have thier own, ohh and like my addition to the New York Metropolitan Area template? You will be happy and so will I it works for both of us. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it Again because the new template divides the to metro areas IE and LA/OC which makes it more appropiate. Not the LA/OC metro has its own template and so does Greater LA or the Southland. I think this is better and more readable, sincce the 2 metros are not divided. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please learn to spell, also. Thanks, Ameriquedialectics 03:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amerique I reverted it again, the other GLAA template was all ready there. I un did your edit because that template was mising to many cities in the Inland Empire. Now the one that I created does not and I especialy like the one I created because the two metros are seperated and it shows that 2 metros make up the Southland (GLAA) rather than just one. I would gladly agree and talk with an administrator. PS: Try not to be rude, I'm not to you! I spelled wrong because I was in a hurry because my son is really sick and I had to take him to the Loma Linda Childrens Hospital (yes I know I still need to work on my spelling but try to be nicer, I dont disrespect you) itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to a request on my talk page; I am not much of a mediator, but I sense that everyone here wants to see this dispute resolved amicably. If you are looking for some help in breaking the deadlock, please perhaps post a message at WP:3O to ask for a third opinion on the matter. Another option, if that does not work out is to try to get informal mediation as described at WP:MEDCAB. In cases such as this, where two sides simply cannot come to an agreement, bringing in outside mediators can help work out a solution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be ok with any sort of 3rd party mediation, but don't think this has to go that far. As far as I understand House1090's position, he seems to think that because the IE constitutes a distinct metropolitan area, it's not a part of or should be considered separately from the "Greater Los Angeles" combined statistical area that this article and associated template are about. The GLA template as developed by User:Samhuddy, in my view, covers the region at an appropriate level of depth and abstractness comparable to the Template:SF Bay Area, Template:Chicagoland and Template:New_York_metropolitan_area templates that this user has also worked on. (I wish he felt more invested in defending his work!) House's template, named Template:Southern California, only demonstrates the extent of his bizarre view that the whole of Southern California exists as some kind of dichotomy between the IE and LA. I myself am only concerned that articles and associated templates reflect their subjects accurately and impartially. Samhuddy's model did this; House split off two counties and created a SoCal template that is obviously not accurate or reflective of either the GLA or Southern California. Ameriquedialectics 06:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created my template because I want people to know that the Greater Los Angeles Area consists of two metropolitan area LA/OC and IE.... now Samhuddys version did not include all the IE cities, so I move the SOCAL template and created a new Southland Template which includes all the cities in the IE and LA and also the two metros are divide....to me that makes more sense! itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came here from Wikipedia:Third opinion. In my view if this is going to be a template covering the Greater Los Angeles Area, it should include all the areas included in that article. At the same time I wonder if this template is even useful. It seems to only be included in five articles currently. The small towns already have a more useful county template. There is thus no need for them also to have this one. I'm no expert in this area, but to my mind a template listing, and being placed on, only the counties and sub regions would be the most useful version of this. - SimonP (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. I agree, the template is only useful at a regional order of magnitude, for "county"-level articles and large towns as opposed to small municipalities. The references I've recently added to the article all discuss "Greater Los Angeles" as an economic construction relying on the resources of the five counties for continued growth and expansion. So, if no one else opposes, I will restore and continue to develop Samhuddy's version of the template. Ameriquedialectics 22:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I nomed Template:Southern California for TfD if anyone is interested. Ameriquedialectics 23:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I nomed Template: Greater Los Angeles Area forTfD if anyone is interested too. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I really think the template should include all the areas or else should be deleted at once. I would also like the template to include San Bernardino in the major cities category because it really is. Amerique it will be your job to input all the cities in San Bernardino County as well as Riverside County (the template is missing more than half of the cities). This job must be done within a week because if its not it will lead to miss judgement of the area. PS: My template includes all the cities in the GLAA un like the version by Samhuddy. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The purpose of defining a region such as this is not to say that all the constituent parts are homogeneous. It's not even to say that all activity that takes place in its constituent parts is oriented towards the "downtown" or "center" of the region. Rather, the purpose is to recognize that, at national and global scales, this region functions (culturally, economically, in terms of transportation, media, etc) as a single unit. The Inland Empire and Orange County do not interact with the global economy as completely distinct units separate from Greater Los Angeles. EmergentProperty (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I liked your previous wording better. Wish you had shown up four months ago. Anyway, it's just one guy whose sole purpose on WP is to act as an IE/SB partisan. I probably will be requesting a topic ban on him at some point at WP:AN; he has a history: [1]. Ameriquedialectics 16:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not here to make friends but to contribute. Amerique, yes I may an ugly past but I have done some great contributions to the Inland Empire related articles. You just dont seem to agree with me EVER. For example the San Bernardino Valley article, you just started to revert me and deleting information with out knowing anything of my plans. The article was a stub, short and un organize, but look at it now it is full of information that a reader intrested in the area might want to know. As for your unnessesary comments I could very well talk to someone here about that because I dont need to here them, and you are so wrong judging with out knowing people. But if you what go a head request a topic ban on me at WP:AN. I know i wont be banned because you just sank to my level by reverting me rather than talking and trying to resolve the problem. House1090 (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In time. Until three days ago, (your first ever referenced edit: [2]) all you've been doing is copying text from some articles and pasting it onto others. Within that capacity, you can do some good, (the LA area article you just put together looks ok) but other than that you've been editing, and reverting, based on beliefs of yours, rather than any understanding of sources or scholarship. However, I am curious to see what you can do with these other articles you say you are going to write, so I'll leave the AN request on hold for now. Ameriquedialectics 20:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did it so the article can have more information. Well I will be rewriting most of them, mainly the SB Valley article. But I just recently found out how to add references 3-4 days ago. I started the LA Metro article because well it was the largest metro without a wikipeida article. And yes I hope on starting the Perris Valley article but I need to find out more information on it first. House1090 (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Froggy

Santa Barbara is part of the Los Angeles area. 16375a92d874b75g83h759d3840 (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but we have to go by official designations in order to avoid endless battles over boundaries and inclusions. Just look at the above thread for an example of this kind of battle. The census defines this Combined Statistical Area as consisting of Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. There is no larger official region besides the state. Some geographers and other academics have begun to identify a larger urban region (called Bajalta California by some), but there aren't nearly enough different sources to cite to overcome the opposition that would be encountered on this page. EmergentProperty (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification requested on Geographical Imbalance template

Someone tagged this article for a geographical imbalance, but did not leave any guidance as to how the article is imbalanced? Could we get some idea as to the problems? If there are no concrete problems in this direction, then the tag should be removed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. House1090 (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. EmergentProperty (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference needed?

I'm referring to the statement quoted below in the Sports section. Would there be some reference needed for this statement?
"As a whole, the Los Angeles area has more national championships, all sports combined (college and professional), than any other city in the United States, with over four times as many championships as the entire state of Texas, and just over twice that of New York City."
Native94080 (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the reference and added it. SoCal L.A. (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page move?

Greater Los Angeles Area → Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside area — I propose this page be moved to Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside metropolitan area (or something along those lines), and Greater Los Angeles/Greater Los Angeles Area be redirected to Los Angeles metropolitan area. This would bring the naming style in line with other large cities: Greater Chicago, Greater Washington, and Greater Seattle, just to name a few, all redirect to their respective metropolitan areas. The LA-LB-Riv article would be in the style of the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area article, which is also about a CSA. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 05:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Change/Support I like the name Greater LA, but I like the changes you are requesting. I would say I am supporting this, for now. Although I would say change the name to Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside area, as this is not really a metro area but rather a combined statistical area (Combination of metropolitan areas). House1090 (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support a merge with the Los Angeles metropolitan area for consistency like you stated. As you said This would bring the naming style in line with other large cities: Greater Chicago, Greater Washington, and Greater Seattle including Greater New York. SoCal L.A. (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC) just to name a few, all redirect to their respective metropolitan areas.[reply]

No merge was suggested and besides the Los Angeles metropolitan area is different with the LA-LB-Riv. CSA. House1090 (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Greater New York does not exist. New York has two metropolitan related articles: New York metropolitan area and Tri-State Region. House1090 (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The merge was implied, but if you'd like, I can make it explicit: I am also proposing a merge.[apologies, I actually wasn't proposing a merge. I don't know what happened, my mind must've blanked. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 02:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC) ] And the two articles that House has linked to also fall in line with the proposed naming style: Greater New York disambiguates to New York metropolitan area and a term used in the 1800s, and the Tri-State Region refers to a much larger metropolitan area, just like the proposed LA-LB-Riv. CSA article. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 09:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree to merging Greater LA and the LA Metro articles (just saying). I slightly agree with a name change. House1090 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Greater Los Angeles should remain but disambiguate as does Greater New York. Information not already in the Riverside-San Bernardino and Los Angeles metropolitan area articles should be put in them. This is just my personal preference though. I am very flexible in the matter. SoCal L.A. (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of this proposal combined with my original move Greater LA to LA-LB-Riv article proposal. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 02:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait, as I now think that the common name is Greater Los Angeles, so this article should be kept as is. Lets just wait to see what others think. House1090 (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proposals are as follows,

1) Greater Los Angeles will redirect and become the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside page but disambiguate as does Greater New York. Information not already in the Riverside-San Bernardino and Los Angeles metropolitan area articles will be put in them.

2) Greater Los Angeles disambiguate as does Greater New York. Information not already in the Riverside-San Bernardino and Los Angeles metropolitan area articles will be put in them.

SoCal L.A. (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

will be put in them.

We still need to wait House1090 (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentatively agreeable towards a name change, but not quite at the moment. As I understand it, SoCal and TorriTorri are proposing to disambiguate "Greater Los Angeles Area" to a page that would read something like:

Greater Los Angeles may refer to:

I'm not exactly clear on the necessity for a disambiguation of this sort, if this is what you are intending. As I understand it, the Los Angeles metropolitan area article was initially developed by House to differentiate the immediate LA area as designated by the US Census from Inland Empire (California). At the time, I did not think that article was necessary, as all that article's pertinent information could be contained in this one, but after he created it he quit trying to remove information related to the IE from this article so I did not care if it existed.

I do not at the moment see the necessity for disambiguation, but I could be made agreeable with moving this article to "Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside metropolitan area" if there were also a broader consensus for moving the current LA area article to "Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana metropolitan area" and the Inland Empire article to "Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario metropolitan area," as only then would we be using consistent naming conventions. Ameriquedialectics 05:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greater_Los_Angeles&oldid=343497732"