Contents

Talk:North Hollywood, Los Angeles

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: Los Angeles / Southern California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofCalifornia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Move logs: North Hollywood, Los Angeles, California Discussions: RM, North Hollywood, Los Angeles, California → North Hollywood, Los Angeles, moved, 24 April 2010, discussion RM, North Hollywood, Los Angeles → North Hollywood, no consensus, 26 April 2018, discussion

Valley Village is a small section that seceded from North Hollywood in the 1990s. Technically speaking, Valley Village is part of North Hollywood (as are all places with ZIP code 916*), but they have a separate community identity. Valley Village was the southwest corner of North Hollywood, north of Studio City, northeast of Studio City, and southeast and east of Valley Glen. D. Lieberman, Valley Glen, CA

I'm appalled at some of the comments that was in this article, referring to North Hollywood as a "lower class" neighborhood. I also didn't see the need to try and associate the arts district with Valley village, mentioning that it was located near it. Valley village is no longer apart of North Hollywood and hasn't been for years. They decided to decisively break away to "rid themselves" from the rest of the community. NoHo wish not to be associated with Valley Village and lets keep it that way for we do not share the same interest. From public transit (which we almost didn't have the bus way because of them and also thanks to them, we have a bus way instead of a light rail), to condos, to building heights, to diversity, to billboards, to affordable housing; we do not see eye to eye. Bye the way, the wildly popular Orange line (which they mentioned that only the poor working class would ride, being part of their reasoning for opposition) has about reached its capacity and a Rail line will be needed in the coming years to accommodate. Now that North Hollywood is on a fast rebound, doesn't give them the right to be associated with the community and reap the benefits of our fruit when people in NoHo worked so hard to improve it, working our hearts out for something we believed in. When you make your bed, you should lay in it

I don't see any need to combine these articles; in any case, if the consensus is to merge them, then North Hollywood should survive as the larger and more historic location. PKM 22:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge. seperate articles are easier to refer to. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in the article on Valley Village, of it is listed to be west of North Hollywood, not northwest. User Racheck says the part of North Hollywood, north of Valley Village is Valley Village.

Do not merge, Valley Village will enjoy its 70th anniversary in 2006. It has a distinct identity quite separate from North Hollywood which is much larger anyway. Having lived in this area since 1994 I would say they are obviously two quite distinct areas.

Each area deserves its own article. Valley Village is a relatively new creation.

Different identities, different places.

As Valley Village is a different section of Los Angeles, and is recognized as such not only by people living in the area, but by formal bodies as well, it does not makes sense that these to articles should be combined.

Incidentally, I don't think that all 916** ZIP Codes are Valley Village--I believe that at least two are Studio City codes. Regardless, Postal ZIP Codes are not necessarily assigned to municipally designated place names.Kaibab 05:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

91604 is entirely Studio City. 91602 cover corners of Studio City, North Hollywood, Toluca Lake and <gack> West Toluca Lake. The post office officially counts 91602 as NH. (I live in the Studio City part of 91602) - PKM 18:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, 91602 is not studio city. 91604 is Studio City only. 91602 is Toluca and NH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.180.170 (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

91601 is the NoHo Arts District; 91602 is Toluca Lake; 91604 is Studio City; 91605 is North Hollywood; 91606 is North Hollywood and Valley Glen (though the Post Office does not recognise Valley Glen); 91607 is Valley Village; 91608 is Universal City. Other 916* ZIP codes are PO Boxes or unique-designation ZIP codes. All of these places are either North Hollywood or places that have seceded from North Hollywood. For example, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power addresses all 916* customers as North Hollywood and all 914* customers, even those in Sherman Oaks, as Van Nuys. I agree, however, that Valley Village, Valley Glen, Toluca Lake, Studio City, Universal City and the NoHo Arts District should remain as separate articles. Dasubergeek 00:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the article doesn't state where north hollywood begins and ends. for example, on the east side, where does north hollywood end and where does burbank begin? etc. it would be nice to say what specific streets encapsulate the area.

I have attempted to do just this, though I am not 100% certain that I have gotten the streets right. I live here in Los Angeles, but not in NoHo and have not yet run my text by a native resident. Still, I am certain that I am at least very close. And I have added an actual map of its location within LA. Crazy that this article did not have this before. KDS4444^Talk 07:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed some vandalism linking to a porn site. 75.129.161.183 05:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>>> The two tunnels between the North Hollywood and Universal City stations were a total of 10,541 feet. The cost of building the two tunnels was $65.4 million and involved 250 workers. Experts estimate the costs of the same work in 2007 would be well over double if not triple given the increased costs of construction materials and labor. <<<

It seems that this paragraph actually discusses the tunnels between Universal City and Hollywood/Highland stations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgreenberg (talk • contribs) 05:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

>>> The note about "Dynamite Kablammo" seems more like self-promotion than an actual "attraction" <<< FreeNachos (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Miracle Mile, Los Angeles, California which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 19:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please change the map coordinates in the box to 34°10'26.35"N118°22'44.49"W? I don’t know how to do it.

Not sure why, that's basically a stone's throw from the ones that were there, but they needed a decimal place shaved off anyway, so... done. --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:North Hollywood, Los Angeles/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 23:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 01:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141106062749/http://www.nvoc.org/index.htmltohttp://www.nvoc.org/index.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the move request was: no consensus. See no general agreement to remove the natural disambiguator "Los Angeles" from this article's title. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, arguments can be strengthened and editors can try again in a few months to garner consensus for this page move. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Hollywood, Los Angeles → North Hollywood – Nothing else called North Hollywood. Unreal7 (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. A redirect would work just as well. All Los Angeles neighborhood names should be formatted the same. See Hollywood, Los Angeles, for example. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• But Hollywood is just at Hollywood? I don't see your point?--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hollywood" is prominent enough to claim the ptopic, and as natural disambiguating title to itself. That's why. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment don't almost all U.S. locations use "xxx, yyy" (unless needing further disambiguation) as the style of article name, per some guideline based on some style guide they're supposed to follow? WP:USPLACE -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope. There is a style like that in place for cities and towns, but it does not apply to neighborhoods, other communities, regions, etc.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose WP:USPLACE In ictu oculi (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW @Unreal7: could you withdraw this please. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Unreal7 (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Remove over disambiguation and WP:IGNOREALLRULES on USPlace. Timrollpickering 08:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – USPLACE does not apply to neighborhoods within cities or list of things in cities (i.e. List of tallest buildings in Long Beach instead of List of tallest buildings in Long Beach, California). No need for over disambiguation. CookieMonster755✉ 15:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency with the titles of similar articles is one need, per NAMINGCRITERIA. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per CookieMonster. USPLACE does not apply. Consistency with other L.A. neighborhoods is a factor, but there are others that do not disambiguate, especially in this area: see Hollywood, Hollywood Hills for example. Dohn joe (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Van Nuys was moved after a similar discussion back in 2016, there is no reason to have a disparity. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The great majority of both articles and subcategories in this category append the city name. Best to remain consistent. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As stated above, USPLACE is for cities, towns, villages, etc but not for neighborhoods or all places in the U.S. In this case, there is no need for a disambiguation. That some other places in LA do need a disambiguation does not somehow extend to mean all do -- that's why you see pages like Hollywood and Van Nuys. It's not like Trafalgar Square needs to be disambiguated because Lyceum Theatre, London is.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The proposed title introduces unnecessary ambiguity. I understand that this is not a format mandated by USPLACE. However, the topics and scopes of these articles are more understandable with "Los Angeles" appended. In this case, the title "North Hollywood, Los Angeles" is a simple indication that the topic of the article is a separate neighborhood in Los Angeles, not a specific part of "Hollywood, Los Angeles," which is actually a different neighborhood. Hollywood Hills is currently ambiguous in this sense; I had to read the article to determine it wasn't referring to a specific part of Hollywood. North Hollywood, Los Angeles, Hollywood Hills West, Los Angeles, and Hollywood Heights, Los Angeles are clearly not a part of Hollywood, Los Angeles based upon the naming, and that's a good thing. Dekimasuよ! 17:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see the potential for confusion, but why does whether or not this is disambiguated resolve this? The current title, as is, does not give any indication that the topic is not part of Hollywood, Los Angeles? If we wanted to have an article on the eastern part of Melrose Hill, Los Angeles for whatever reason, it would go at East Melrose Hill, Los Angeles, but whether or not we used disambiguation would not provide any further clarity. It's an unfortunate quirk of locations with directions in their names, but disambiguation doesn't really solve that confusion -- just as one may need to read West Virginia to know it is not part of Virginia, or South Sudan not in Sudan, to use some better known examples.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Point taken as far as West Virginia and South Sudan (though of course those used to be part of Virginia and Sudan; this wasn't ever a part of Hollywood, I believe). Since the usual arrangement is to base the second part of the title on what the thing is a geographic division of, if there was an article on part of a neighborhood, I would expect the title to be structured "Part of neighborhood, Neighborhood," not "Part of neighborhood, City." But if the consensus is that there is no ambiguity, then that's fine. Dekimasuよ! 23:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In fact, there are no other competing topic called "North Hollywood" and North Hollywood is already a redirect here. WP:USPLACE is about cities, not neighborhoods of cities. Neighborhoods only include disambiguation when it's needed, for instance Hollywood, Allston, Riverside and Avondale, Allapattah, and countless others.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:AT. This simply reverses a redirect. There is no other article that could be reasonably titled "North Hollywood" and that title is more concise and natural without being unnecessarily overprecise. Station1 (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, unnecessary disambiguation as there is no competing usage. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It seems this will bring unnecessary confusion and disrupt the extant consistency in this category and it is subcategories. The title works fine, and the other redirects there nonetheless. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per potential confusion with North Hollywood High School, North Hollywood station, North Hollywood Branch, North Hollywood Shootout - things that in their own contexts could be called casually "North Hollywood". -- Netoholic @ 19:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No benefit to readers or anyone else. Arguably, they'd be worse off owing to ambiguity and confusion. Andrewa (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.