Talk:List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in the San Fernando Valley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

numbers, other[edit]

what are the multiple numbers in some of the first column cells? and how can numbers go over 1000, when there are less than 900 LAHCM sites? doncram (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, now i see there are slightly more than 900 already, but all numbered below 999 are LA HCMs, while the 1000 series and 2000 series are different. Modified in article. doncram (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headley-Handley House[edit]

LAHCM #563, listed 07-14-1992, is Lloyd Wright's Headley-Handley House, at 3003 Runyon Canyon Road. Runyon Canyon is a canyon on the south slope of the Hollywood Hills, a bit west of the Hollywood sign. This location is accessed by road from Mulholland Drive that runs along the top of the hills, and this location is to the south, below Mulholland, on the Hollywood side rather than the Studio City city. The planning department listing puts this in Studio City, and in the South Valley Area Planning Commission. I think it may be there because the access is from Mulholland, and the top of the hills and north slope may be covered more easily by the Studio City / South Valley offices, despite it being on the Hollywood side. I wonder if it was within the boundaries of Hollywood in the planned secession of Hollywood from the rest of LA. I dunno, I sorta think it should be covered in a Hollywood article, not in a San Fernando article, so i moved it out. It could be restored and kept in this list. But I think it is mildly better for this article should cover San Fernando, the actual valley, not the arbitrary boundaries of the administrative catchment area. Either way, a footnote as to why it is included or excluded needs to be added. doncram (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

non-HCM second table[edit]

For the non-HCM places that are nonetheless assigned numbers by Los Angeles, those need to be in a separate table (as now in the article), or they need to be removed altogether. Since that table is not very well-developed, and the title of the section is not great, and the need for non-HCM listings is tenuous, I suggest moving it out. doncram (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay i am being bold and just moving it out. I think it is not a complete list of NRHP and California Historical Landmarks in the valley, and the LA commission's recognition of them having been recognized by state or nation is not itself significant, so i think this is best. doncram (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with moving the 1000 and 2000 series out of the article space. These properties are listed by the city on the "DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING HISTORIC-CULTURAL MONUMENT (HCM) REPORTS" (e.g., North Valley HCM Report and South Valley HCM Report and include some of the more significant sites in a given section of the city. It appears that, for some reason, the city is reluctant to designate sites that are state parks. For example, Los Encinos is one of the five or ten most significant historic sites in the Valley, and operated as a California state historical park, but the City has never given it the HCM designation. They do, however, list it on their South Valley HCM report in the 1000 series as a site that has already been recognized as a California Historical Landmark. Another example is the Point Fermin lighthouse in San Pedro -- one of the most important and beautiful historic sites in the Harbor area but only recognized in the 1000/2000 series on the Harbor HCM Report. In addition to the recognition given by the city in the HCM reports, I think it is very helpful for a reader who is interested in San Fernando Valley historical sites to have these sites included. If a reader was new to historical sites, and pulled up this article without any mention of the 1000 and 2000 series properties, he or she would not see any reference to Los Encinos or the Portal of the Folded Wing -- two of the best sites in the valley. I thought your earlier language explaining the difference between the 1000/2000 properties and the others was a good way to alert the reader to the distinctions, but I think deleting them altogether deprives the reader of highly useful information. Cbl62 (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see and agree with your point about providing a reader interested in historic sites in the Valley with all of them, including those designated by state or Feds but not named HCMs by LA. However, one issue is that including the second table brings the title out of exactness in describing the article. Believe me, I would really like to see the article title and/or other presentation that finesses the issue adequately for wikipedia editors that focus on this. Exactly the same issue applies for List of NHLs in NY, into which I included a second list-table of the few non-NHLs that are more important historical sites in the same area. My inclusion of the second list is supported by some, but was opposed by one critic in the Featured List nomination. I had heard, previously, about FL reviews being particularly harsh on this. Actually your attention to the in-progress peer review on the NY NHLs article would be appreciated, too.
Also, a temporary issue is that the table of non-HCMs seems very incomplete, including two places (which i had added) that have no names, they are just numbers. And I am unclear on whether it is a complete list of NRHPs and CHLs in the valley. If it is not complete, I am unsure it can be presented yet. Especially if this article is up for DYK exposure tomorrow, I was thinking it is better not included. I concede other views are possible, it could be a work in progress and still be exposed as DYK. It's fine by me if you want to revert my removal of the table, and I'll do whatever i can think of --nothing comes to mind though-- to help fix it up. doncram (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sylmar, San Fernando, Newhall[edit]

It seems that California Historical Landmarks and other historic sites in Sylmar (a district of Los Angeles), and San Fernando (a city in the San Fernando valley), should now be included. I'm not sure but i guess Newhall is in Santa Clarita Valley so the Newhall and Mentryville ones can be dropped. doncram (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the NRHP designations used San Fernando generically. For example, the NRHP has Pico Caynon Well No. 4 in San Fernando, though it's nowhere near the City of San Fernando. Also, some registries list the Aqueduct Cascades as San Fernano, when it's actually Sylmar. Cbl62 (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article in good shape[edit]

The article now has pictures for 35 of the 68 SFV HCMs, descriptions of all the HCMS and coordinates for most of the sites. Not bad for an article that's about a week old. Cbl62 (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010[edit]

  • Since Los Angeles City or County employees are not State of California employees. Can the work of City or County employees be treated as work of a State of California employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties, and is consequently in the public domain? Bband11th (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corbin Palms House.PNG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Corbin Palms House.PNG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Corbin Palms House.PNG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roland E. Hill House[edit]

Correct address is 3268 Bennett, not 3266 - see http://cityplanning.lacity.org/staffrpt/CHC/1-24-08/CHC-2007-5437.pdf. - PKM (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure enough. Updated address, coords, and ref. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in the San Fernando Valley. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in the San Fernando Valley. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Los_Angeles_Historic-Cultural_Monuments_in_the_San_Fernando_Valley&oldid=1203636096"