Talk:Los Angeles

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 (article contribs).

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

Neighbors and enclaves

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

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

I don't think it's necessary to name the suburbs or adjacent communities. It's not as if they are needed for geographical context; they are not better known than Los Angeles! In an article about Santa Monica or Beverly Hills of course we are going to mention its proximity to Los Angeles, but the reciprocal is not needed. Let's face it, LA is the colossus here. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think it's useful to have a more detailed general geographic description, and that would include the neighbors and enclaves. Los Angeles has an odd shape, includes pieces that don't seem like they would be part of the city (the Valley and San Pedro), and excludes parts that you would think would be part of it (say, West Hollywood). How many (say) New Yorkers know that Hollywood is part of LA (as a political entity) but West Hollywood is not?

I think we could usefully spend a paragraph or two working around the various geographical places in prose, possibly also detailing neighborhoods that are part of the political entity (Brentwood does not appear in the article! just for example). --Trovatore (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Plus there's things such as the sports teams that are named for the city but play in nearby municipalities. I've seen LA described in travel guides as being "made up of many small cities". And while there's the one big incorporated city that is actually named Los Angeles, any discussion of the human settlement that doesn't include at least some coverage of the wider concept of Greater Los Angeles is insufficient. In that regard, LA is like Sydney, in that the actual incorporated city is only part of the whole picture. oknazevad (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Well that would be referring to th Los Angeles metropolitan area, not here. IWI (chat) 13:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes and no. Again, like Sydney or Melbourne, there's zero good reason for the article to actively and purposely omit any mention of the interdependence of the city with its neighbors. oknazevad (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Transportation info in infobox being marked “spam”

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

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

Los Angeles, NV listed at Redirects for discussion

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

Los Angeles, Arizona listed at Redirects for discussion

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

"Los Angeles, California"

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

I am confused as to what the problem is. What is wrong with the infobox? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The name. It says "Los Angeles, California" instead of simply "Los Angeles". That is inconsistent with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and generally senseless for the reasons given above. Surtsicna (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Checking the infoboxes at San Francisco and Chicago, I see they also include the state names, so it appears the WP community has decided that is OK. I'd advise against trying to change that WP:Concensus, although you can try it if you think everybody else will go along. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

There was a "weak consensus" for this in December 2018 but it strikes me as truly odd. Meanwhile in the article about New York City, the infobox says simply "New York" (common name), not even "New York City", let alone "New York City, New York". Same with Las Vegas, where it's simply "Las Vegas". At the very least the infobox name should reflect the article name. In addition to the reasons given above, the state name in the name field is redundant because the infobox makes it perfectly clear that the city belongs to California. Surtsicna (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

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 uncensored so I do not get why this is New content and requires consensus, could someone discuss on this? 101.176.22.6 (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)