Contents

Template talk:Greater Los Angeles Area

This template was considered for deletionon2009 May 1. The result of the discussion was "keep".

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greater Los Angeles Area template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: Los Angeles / Southern California This template 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 This template is supported by Los Angeles area task force. This template is supported by Southern California task force.

I believe that this template should be changed back to reflect the format under which it was already created. Furthermore, the Greater Los Angeles Area should be looked upon here as unique from the Combined Statistical Area. Because of the unique sizes and shapes of the counties involved, the CSA includes areas that are not traditionally part of that area (ex. the high desert). Also, regional divisions within a city should probably be avoided. Samhuddy (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template is currently being viewed as too big to be useful at TfD. There are too many small towns in the GLA, listing them all would be impractical. Setting the bar for inclusion at 100k trims it down. Please comment here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Greater_Los_Angeles_Area. Amerique^dialectics 17:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Samhuddy as hard as its to believe I agree with Amerique, I like it shorter. Its better organized and easier to read. Well done Amerique 100k cities way better! Also size has nothing to do with keeping a template. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SB Valley is not a Subrigion...niether is the IE, the SB Valley is just a geografical area and the IE is a metro. In my edit it was shorter and there was the 3 metro areas that make the GLA (LA-IE-Ventura County) I will revert the edit until some one agrees with Amerique. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Example: East Los Angeles, Gateway Cities in LA Metro.. High Desert, Low Desert are in the Inland Empire metro...my version is better and shorter. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read about subregions, thanks. Amerique^dialectics 23:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I would agree to subregions to a metropolitan that does not have of metros in it like Oxnard-Ventura...but since LA is composed of 3 metropolitan areas it would be shorter and if I may say so myself better. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may summarize the disagreement:

• Amerique thinks the Subregion section should list all of the various names (be they metropolitan areas, regions, subregions, what have you) that are used in reference to the GLAA, while
• House1090 feels that the Metropolitan area section would be best suited by displaying only three the "official," actual metropolitan areas. Moreover, House1090 feels (in general) that if the template could be made smaller, it would be better off.

As a New Yorker, it took me some reading to get familiar with all the terms and areas, so at the very least, the above clarification helped me. After familiarizing myself with the home of the Lakers, it's clear you have each made some strong arguments, and are both editing with the intention of improvement. The semi-recent TfD was excellent, and it seems a lot of good came out of it. With all that in mind, here's what I think. The litmus for what should or shouldn't be written about in Wikipedia is, of course, notability. A broad subset or corollary of that test (that I find useful for other, non-article creation arenas) is to try and examine whether someone would be looking for the information and whether or not the information presented would be useful to that reader. It's because of that that my personal opinion weighs closer to that of Amerique's, that of greater inclusion.

As a template, it costs very little to include on a page, but provides a valuable link between subjects that are related, and are liable to interest someone on a particular page - Wikipedia's version of the "People buying this also bought..." option. As you point out, House1090, the template still seems a tad bloated, and as far as I can tell, there's no need for some pages (such as Low Desert); a more extreme example is Template:California. Still, if someone is interested in the GLAA, it's quite reasonable to presume they would be interested in reading about San Fernando ValleyorSouth Central. The argument on the TfD regarding the unusual size and shape is a good one, and lends itself to greater rather than less inclusion. As such, I think naming the row "Subregions" is more appropriate. Metropolitan areas is a viable option, but I feel that the majority of people would want to learn more about the various subsects of the region, and how people refer to different areas. South Central is a good example - clearly all of it is covered in Los Angeles, but it's definitely an area people would want to read about. By including subregions within the template, you give yourselves more leeway for the various notable terms and regions used.

TL;DR: I think we should go with Subregions, and include most of the items that were there before, although it would be great if you two could work out some of the lesser-value ones (admittedly, not my area of expertise). Also, watch for the three-revert rule and try to remain civil to each other - you both have contributed some excellent work here, and should be commended for it! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see were you are going with this and I think that if Amerique and I put our differences aside and work together we can come up to some sort of compromise. I think if we include the subregions (not including the IE) and make a seperate row for the metropolitan areas (including the IE) I think I will be willing to live with that. And if I may say so This template is not about LA but the region around LA. South Central would be better off in a template about LA it self not GLA. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this. "Subregions" could possibly be further subdivided. I'll resume editing at some point soon. In the meantime, I would implore House not to redirect disambiguation pages without consensus. If I recall, doing that helped him get blocked last time. Thanks. Amerique^dialectics 05:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the redirect would be beter for the IE article but I added it to the IE talk page to see what other wikipedians think. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of those were in the city of LA, last time I looked the template was about 5counties not LA city. If that section was included the San Bernardinos westside, and shandin hills should be on there. House1090 (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they all extend outside LA city limits. Anyone interested in areas in and around LA would be interested in reading about them. Why don't you make an article about west SB and put that in the SB template? Happy 4th. Amerique^dialectics 18:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont you include it in the LA City article/County? Little subdivisions are not important. Thats why I recommended a seperate LA-OC Metro template House1090 (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They all extend outside the LA city limits, and county template format guidelines are already established, so including them there would be inappropriate. Amerique^dialectics 18:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then create LA-OC Metro so you can add all the detail you want, this template needs to be short and easy to read....thats why we have a GLAA article. Remember if you dont your writing to be edited and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. House1090 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion on municipal regions[edit]

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

I find that the template is more useful and informative when the Municipal regions are included (version link) than when they are excluded (version link). — Athaenara ✉ 21:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Athaenara! Amerique^dialectics 21:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thats all I was looking for If 2 people agree then its fine with me! House1090 (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, happy to help :-) — Athaenara ✉ 08:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that "Municipal Regions" link to some article to provide insight as to exactly what is meant by the term? Or perhaps a rewording to make it more clear? Not being familiar with the Los Angeles area, I find myself confused as to what a "municipal region" actually is. Is it some kind of pseduo-governmental entity? Largely cultural division? Some clarification would make it more useful to the reader. Shereth 14:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about using the term municipalities but that would seem to imply more of a unitary political organization than is present. By "municipal regions" I meant something like "urban subregions" of LA. These are largely local cultural groupings and not formal entities in any sense. Amerique^dialectics 15:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "urban subregions" would work better - not sure it's perfect but a step in the right direction. "Municipal" still seems to carry with it some kind of association with municipal government, if these are largely informal divisions it'd be preferable to avoid the use of terms that carry an implication of formality. Shereth 16:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The "region" article actually provides a better account of more localized concepts than "subregion". Amerique^dialectics 16:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the LA area regions section moved to the Template: Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, since that template focuses more on LA it self? Any ways thats what I think. House1090 (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to copy them there, but I'd like to keep the LA subregions on this template as well. Amerique^dialectics 05:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I think I might copy them. House1090 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Moalli has been making many recent additions, some dubious, such as Death Valley. More active California editors should look through the page history for other inappropriate adds. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the population in the template, and it is by no means irrelevant as it follows reasons for inclusion in an infobox, but an IP user disagrees with the addition. The whole point of this discussion is to achieve a consensus on whether or not it should be added without making to many reverts to the template. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This template is a navigation box, not an infobox. As I sort of implied here, how does the inclusion of an entire row just to list that population stat help navigation between related articles? Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the links. After combing through each, I feel now that it is not necessary to have the population as it does not "facilitate navigation between [related] articles", however the way I had it previously set up, with the population linking to the combined statistical area page, it did indeed facilitate navigation between related articles. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reconsidered and will be removing the populations from the templates I have added it too, it is not highly necessary and if a user feels the compelling urge to find the population, they will click on the link provided. Thank you all for your patience. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering about the use of "Satellite Cities" in the template. In the case of a region as large as this, I think it's hard to define which cities would fall under this category. Based on the definition used elsewhere on WP, Long Beach is not a satellite city (but is listed as such here), but cities like Lancaster/Palmdale, Victorville/Hesperia, Palm Springs, Oxnard/Ventura, etc., would fit the definition but are not listed as such. Perhaps just using population would be a little more clear, and I think would still highlight the important secondary cities of the region. Also, based on the 2010 Census figures, several of these cities need to be moved:

Over 400K: Long Beach

Over 200K: Anaheim, Irvine, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Ana

Over 100K: Burbank, Corona, Costa Mesa, Downey, El Monte, Fontana, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Glendale, Huntington Beach, Inglewood, Lancaster, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norwalk, Ontario, Orange, Oxnard, Palmdale, Pasadena, Pomona, Rancho Cucamonga, Santa Clarita, Simi Valley, Temecula, Thousand Oaks, Torrance, Ventura, Victorville, West Covina

Thoughts? Dtcomposer (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree the template could use a minor fix. Long Beach is sort of an oddball in that its caught between cities like Anaheim, Irvine, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Santa Ana, but not quite at the level of Los Angeles; for one it has a world trade center. I wouldn't disagree with the changes you have presented, though, it may be better to rename "over 200k" satellite cities and find another name for the Long Beach category. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 19:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]