Talk:Pasadena, California/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Pasadena Parrots are year round birds

It's not true that the Pasadena Parrots are winter birds. They can be seen in and around Pasadena throughout the year.

Mmanning 16:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Mmanning: these parrots came from Simpson's Nursery in Pasadena after a fire destroyed the place in 1969. The parrots escaped and have thrived in the community year-round.

I'm afraid that this theory is one of several, and no theory on their origin has yet been proven as fact.

Mmanning 16:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Mmanning: The history of Pasadena is richer and deeper than what is written. I should like to prepare something for it. Please watch.

Amelia Earhart?

I just saw her name added as a famous native... Is this right? Her article doesn't mention it. Is this right? Phauge 03:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

She was a resident, not a native, as were many of the entries. I've changed the heading to "Notable Pasadenans" to broaden the criteria. -Will Beback 04:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ozma Pasadena.jpg

Image:Ozma Pasadena.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Music

Anyone who didn't grow up on the West Coast of the United States may have first heard about Pasadena California in the Beach Boys song "Little Old Lady from Pasadena."

Sorry, but Pasadena is well-known for its New Year's Parade, Rose Parade, and Rose Bowl game. Even a couple Superbowls have been played in The Rose Bowl. Yes, the Rose Bowl is in Pasadena. And The Little Old Lady From Pasadena was a Jan and Dean song. Where are you from??? --Magi Media (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Incorporation

I have read, in a book on architecture in LA County, that Pasadena and South Pasadena were incorporated separately because one was wet (allowed alcoholic beverages to be sold) and the other was dry (sales prohibited). Can anyone point to more direct sources on this? Thanks.

Ans: Wet or dry would have nothing to do with independent incorporations. Pasadena is the second incorporated city of Southern California - 1886 (to Los Angeles - 1871). Third was Long beach and fourth was Monrovia. Pasadena grew as a prominent financial district popular for its environment and proximity to LA. The founding fathers saw the time was right to make Pasadena its own municipality, almost rivaling any need to go into Los Angeles.

South Pasadena grew up more as a bedroom community although it was able to develop a respectable business district. A respectable commercial district is more what qualifies a town to incorporate. There is a measurable tax base in commercial areas. This lack of business district is what keeps Altadena to the north from being able to seriously consider incorporation. --Magi Media (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought South Pasadena (west of Fair Oaks) was part of the Indiana Colony land grant, but split off. Samhuddy (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Pasadena is getting crowded

The Notable Pasadenans section is getting out of hand. How do other city articles handle this? It's way to long, and full of people who frankly might not be worth mentioning Phauge 22:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

See Los Angeles --Magi Media (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I question the value of "notable" sections whatsoever. The implication is that somehow the city made them great? More likely the school they went to, their family wealth, a business they happened to do well in. It's reasonable for schools to advertise their successes -- their function is to educate and improve people. It's not reasonable to assume that the Rose Bowl, the freeways, the city council is strongly tied to someone's success. Let's be honest, it's a form of bragging for the people who manage to keep their names on the list. Inappropriate for an encyclopedia.Piano non troppo (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
It is standard for everything from big cities to little towns to have a "notable residents" section. Some of it is civic pride, some of it is "maps to the stars' homes"-type celebrity interest, but mostly it is a factor of the core Wikipedia concept of building the web, which means adding links wherever possible. "Notable" in the Wikipedia context means having an article. A different concern that some of us have is that this inofrmation is rarely sourced properly, and is a target for editors adding either non-notable people or joke entries. Whatever the faults or benefits of the lists, it isn't just a Pasadena issue. If you'd like to share your thoughts in a more central location there's Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. Their guideline for city articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline, include the notable residents section.   Will Beback  talk  18:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested photo takes

  • Wrigley Mansion
  • Rose Bowl and/or Brookside Golf Course which is best inclusion of Arroyo Seco
  • City Hall, after reseising
  • District 16, a shot from the steps of the library through the Paseo to the steps of Civic Auditorium, an imporatant chater feature. After City Hall work.
  • Paseo Pasadena
  • Old Town, Fair Oaks at Colorado or De Lacy at Colorado, after construction.
  • Castle Green and/or Central Park
  • Gamble House
  • PCC
  • Caltech or Athanaeum
  • Memorial Park
  • Any of several Metro stations, especially Del Mar after construction which includes the old train station.
  • High schools: Muir. Blair, PHS
  • Victory Park and/or Farmer's Market on Saturday.
  • The old St. Lukes Hospital
  • The new Huntington Hospital after the West Wing construction.
  • 210 Fwy from an overpass, maybe at Lake with Metro Station.
  • South Lake
  • Ritz-Carlton
  • Sheraton
  • Green Street between Civic Center and Paseo
  • 1365 S Oakland Ave - The Bundy House —Preceding unsigned comment added by NCPharmD2B (talk • contribs) 19:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Can anyone get a better picture for this article? I feel that the Colo. Bridge isn't "representative" enough of this city. Maybe city hall?Kiwidude 19:29, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

What do you recommend? City Hall? Old Town (hard to photograph distinctly)? The Raymond Apartments? An aerial view? -Willmcw 23:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
I used to have some great photos of Pasadena, but they were sadly lent to an illustrator who never returned them. I plan on taking some more soon and will post. I think City Hall, along with The Rose Bowl and Castle Green would be swell. Let me know if anyone else has any requests. Phauge 14:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
This was the best I could take. The image is small. If you want to try to tweak the larger version, it is called Image:Pasadena City Hall.jpg Phauge 15:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I've never been sure if it's been possible to see the whole skyline (with the Colorado Street Bridge) from the San Rafael Hills, but that would also make for a good shot. Samhuddy (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Mmanning 16:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Mmanning: The photo in the article of city hall is pretty impressive. Of course, it's undergoing seismic retro right now. A newer picture should become available!

Does the picture look crooked to anyone else? Phauge 15:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not really, Maybe one day I'll get out and take some fine Pasadena pixes, day and night! Magi Media 07:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Magi Media
  • Would anyone like a picture of the building while it is under construction? It's completely covered in scaffolding at the moment, but I'm not sure if such a pic would bring any value to the article. Phauge 17:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I would point out that the "parrot" photo used on this page is not actually a parrot but a Military Macaw. Just Google Military Macaw and you'll see what I mean. The most common parrot here is the Mexican Red-Crowned Amazon or sometimes called the Mexican Red-headed Parrot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozmer (talk • contribs) 05:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

History

The section on Pasadena's History is very limited and hardly covers anything past the 1930s, which is odd because the Pasadena we know is much more a product of WWII than anything before. I move to expand the section. Also, Pasadena was set to install a heritage streetcar for its centennial in 1986, but went under right before construction could begin. I don't know what to do with this information, but maybe a transportation section would do the trick. Samhuddy (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added a transportation section covering the Gold line, Bob Hope airport and the freeways. BobRaisin (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Don't forget to mention the 710 Fwy. Ucla90024 (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also point out that Pasadena was the first Non-Southern city to be forced to integrate their school system. I would think that would mark a cornerstone of the city's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.185.13 (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"Hosting" TV Shows?

The last sentence in the preamble states that Pasadena "hosts" more TV shows than any other city. There's no citation; it's unclear what is meant by "hosts" - I would think that means "serves as the filming location for", as in "live from beautiful Burbank it's 'The Tonight Show'", but the context seems more like "serves as the fictional location for". If that's the case, I strongly doubt that more TV shows are set in Pasadena than, say, New York City or San Francisco, but if so, there should be a [strong] citation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.16.108.70 (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --Manway (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

neighborhood articles

Several articles on neighborhoods in Pasadena have been proposed for merger. I propose a compromise by which a list of neighborhoods is created. Samhuddy (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Bungalow Heaven one especially should not be merged as it has reportedly recently been added to the National Register of Historic Places. G Sisson (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Let's do it, combine into one or group them together into regions. (See City of Los Angeles) Ucla90024 (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Merge would be a really bad idea. So Pas is a very different "old Money" neighbor and residents are very vociferous and consistant about announcing they are a separate city. DocOfSoc (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge?

You simply can't merge two separately incorporated cities. AND, the famous parrots flew by here several miles south of Pasadena ,just an FYi :-)DocOfSoc (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Is merger banner at article's top serious ? or vandalism ? or ?
South Pasadena is an independent city, not a district within Pasadena.---Look2See1 t a l k → 19:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
By taking a look at the edit summary history, the tag was added by an anonymous editor, thus it was likely part of vandalism. I removed the tag because this, I believe, was to obvious. --Moreau36--Discuss 00:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Do Not Revert

Please do not revert large sections of this article again without discussion here. You know who you are. Unnecessary Reverts cost me and other editors hours of work. Thank you DocOfSoc (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You have not provided a SINGLE legitimate reason or policy as to why this clump of mostly unsourced trivia belongs. I can see a few parts being integrated into the rest of the article, but the rest is miscellaneous trivia fluff. Frankly, I don't care nor does it matter that you've spent a lot of time editing it. I can spend weeks posting spam and advertisements on an article, and just because it cost me "hours of work" does not mean it is exempt from deletion. …Grayshi talk ■ my contribs 20:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
First of all, that is not a reasonable comparison; posting spam is against Wikipedia policy, while posting verifiable content (sourced or otherwise) is not.
Second, the shortcuts you linked to (WP:MERCY and WP:LOSE) go to an essay, not a policy or guideline. And that essay is about arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, not on article talk pages.
Finally, if you think something needs a source, you can tag it with {{fact}}. There are no set standards for including information in an article; notability guidelines are for articles, not for the content within articles. Editors are not beholden to your arbitrary standards of what constitutes "miscellaneous trivia fluff". As long as it doesn't defame a living person, it's fine to tag it for citations and give editors a reasonable amount of time to fix it.
I strongly recommend that both of you continue discussion here instead of reverting each other, rather than in addition to it. A slow edit war is still an edit war. And you don't need to pepper your sentences with a bunch of piped links to essays and guidelines; just talk to each other like a couple of people. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 21:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Last I checked, it wasn't forbidden to link to essays that portray my opinion, and I could argue that this is a deletion discussion of sorts. Regardless, almost all the points in the essay can apply to anywhere on Wikipedia.
And here we go with the "verifiable content" argument again... I can verify that there's a small flower shop on E Colorado Blvd, does that mean it is worthy of mention in this article? As an admin, you do know that WP:TRIVIA exists, right? I can see one or two sections being integrated into the rest of the article, but that stuff about parrots and WP:SYNTHed Orange Grove Boulevard nonsense? Exactly how does someone come to the OR conclusion that it is a residential district for the rich because there's a few mansions here and there that belong to the wealthy?
Lastly, I have tried to communicate. All I've been responded with is a WP:OWN-ish statement about how DocOfSoc "has worked so hard on the article" and if I delete it, I'm considered a stalker or something along the lines of that. I'm at a loss on how to reasonably discuss any issue with her. …Grayshi talk ■ my contribs 20:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:TRIVA is about trivia lists, not about overall content. In fact, the point of WP:TRIVIA is that content from trivia sections should be incorporated into the main body of the article when possible. There's absolutely nothing there that says they should be unilaterally deleted. Take a look at WP:TRIVA#What this guideline is not. Stop trying to wikilawyer this, and just talk.
Speaking of which, where are these attempts to communicate? I don't see anything from you on this page or on DocOfSoc's talk page. If you've had interactions on other articles, that doesn't mean you can just skip discussion from now on. Edit summaries are for summarizing edits, not for making parting comments.
If you don't like the stuff about parrots and Orange Grove Boulevard, discuss it. File a Request for Comment, if you feel that's necessary, so others can weigh in on it. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 22:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
You have apparently not read half of what I wrote. I'm fully aware it doesn't advocate the deletion of all trivia. I said that I don't see how parts such as the parrots are relevant to the article. If you're not satisfied with the WP:TRIVIA explanation, then try WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. This isn't wikilawyering (which is just an "essay", as you put it), but an attempt to make the article abide by policy. Suggesting an RfC is an excessive move at this point.
As for attempts to communicate, look at the past disputes we had on Chinatown-related articles. She drops in, reverts, leaves some comment about how it's "important" and "relevant" and then disappears. What am I supposed to do if she doesn't even try to discuss, or give an actual topic for discussion, for that matter? -Grayshi talk/contribs 21:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Pointing out flaws in your arguments does not mean I didn't read what you wrote. It's not that WP:TRIVIA doesn't advocate deleting all trivia; it's that WP:TRIVIA doesn't advocate deleting any trivia at all. That's not what that page is for. It has absolutely nothing to do with what you're talking about. Not even a little bit. Neither does WP:IINFO, because she's not citing lyrics, plots, or statistics, and neither does WP:NOTDIR because she's not adding directory info (unless your argument is that it gives undue weight to parrots, but it's a big article and that bit looks to have fairly broad coverage across several sources). The fact is, there is no policy that defines what can or can't be included in a Wikipedia article. You won't find it because it doesn't exist. If the information is verifiable, sourced, and neutral, each case has to be decided individually. You do that by discussing it. Again and again and again, if need be.
I'm not going to look at past disputes you've had on other articles. That's exactly the point I was making. It doesn't matter what arguments you've had elsewhere; this article is this article, and requires new discussion. If you can't get past whatever personal issues are between you two, that's exactly the sort of thing RFC was made for. It's not excessive; it's the most informal means of asking other users to weigh in on something. Not about you and DocOfSoc, but about the content dispute.
Having said that, I do agree with you about some of the content. The original research and synthesized conclusions aren't good. I just disagree with the way you're going about making those points. Mass deletion, citing irrelevant guidelines, ad hominem arguments about DocOfSoc... that's not helping your case. I'm not saying she's innocent either; my original post encouraged both of you to stop edit warring and I already told her I thought the accusations of wikistalking were counterproductive. But whatever issues you may have elsewhere, you still need to make a good-faith effort to discuss each new problem on each new page. That might be all it takes. But if you won't try to start with a clean slate, and you do want to work on this article, then you should look for dispute resolution. I recommend either RFC or WP:3O, neither of which are a big deal at all. Far simpler than all this back-and-forth here. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 00:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
By the way, this is a good start. I'm not saying you have to roll over, I'm just saying you should do your due diligence and try to discuss it. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 00:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Notable Pasadenans

Why are people erasing some of the notables i put there. i just had to relist william holden. the guy is really famous and was big movie star in hollywood and was in sabrina and other oscar winning movies. it's so annoying. I removed most of the external links (some of which I'd added previously myself), in accordance with Wikipedia policy regarding using external links only when necessary. Feel free to revert if this deletion seems excessive. ffirehorse 00:39, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC) FYI: William Holden lived in South PasadenaDocOfSoc (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Update

Recovering from whooping cough is slow, but did some significant updates anyway as per Franamax's cogent suggestions. Everything I changed is referenced and ref'ed some that I anticipated would be questioned. Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas.DocOfSoc (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

DocOfSoc, maybe this will stand as the point where I move from a 3O to an active editor, so be it. I'm looking at this edit you made, and I think it's wildly inappropriate. I noted in my edit summary that number of resident condo dwellings has nothing to do with shopping, yet you restored the text. Further, you've introduced phrasing such as "au courant retail stores", "most unique shopping adventures" and "elegant old" into the text. Surely you can step back and see how blatantly promotional this material is? Imagine how our encyclopedia would read if every article were written in the same style. I'm going to revert that edit if the interface will still let me by now. The backing sources also looked pretty promotional. Franamax (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for the condo edit, that was not my intent to include that at all. Yes, when I step back, it does seem promotional. I am quite happy to have you join editing and send this frustrated sick person to bed. As we seem to edit at the same time, it makes it all more interesting. I really am trying here Fran. In rewriting and trying to avoid any copy editing violations, I slip into my more non encyclopedic style of writing. I truly apologize again. Thank you for your patience. I sincerely am not trying to be "wildly inappropriate."
Contritely, DocOfSoc (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
From what I've seen, you've done a whole ton of work and majorly addressed a lot of concerns, so I'm pretty happy with your work, It would be great to write from impressions rather than RS facts, I could contribute much more that way. :) But we do have that whole "encyclopedia" thing that keeps us in a neutral voice... Franamax (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Edit conflict again lol. TY, I feel better after your comments. Neutral, what a concept! :-D I can do that. What I wanted to say as we write together: Clarification: In looking back at the edits, the condominiums were accidently included as I had copied that section while we were doing edit conflict. I did not write that section at all and should have double checked it after the edit conflict, but was not aware of the rv at the time. Namaste!...DocOfSoc (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

The culture in Pasadena is unique. A small metropolis unto itself. Try wending your way before dawn to the magnificent Orange Grove Blvd. on New Year's Day for a last minute touch up on a float, or escort a queen to "her" float despite freezing your butt off for a taste of its relevance. The history about whom has lived there is important, not to mention fascinating. The parrots are part and parcel of the culture in SGV and especially Pasadena. See here [1] and here [2] for some comments by residents. Yes, I spent ALL of Sunday on the Pasadena article, as I have been mandated to rewrite on another issue. I got up Monday to find a *huge* chunk reverted without discussion. That is just not right, no matter what essays or whatever you quote. In addition, FYI, I am recovering from whooping cough. Relevant? But... coff coff. Civil discussion is welcomed. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

POV Doc? yeah right. I have never lived there. My husband died there. Was waxing lyrically. DocOfSoc (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)DocOfSoc (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
"Unique", "important", "fascinating" - Instead of using subjective adjectives please actually explain what I'm addressing; how this isn't miscellaneous trivia, and how it can be better incorporated into other parts of the article. Right now it is a clump of unrelated information put under one section. I'm sorry about your whooping cough, but no, it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. -Grayshi talk/contribs 21:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
As I said I was "waxing lyrically," On the talk page. There is no "clump of unrelated info." All of it is relevant to Pasadena. It is already divided into sections under the heading of Culture, ATM. If you have an actual suggestions for changes, I would be most happy to see them. Thank you for your concern about my illness.DocOfSoc (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Kafziel, I would really appreciate if you would please point out the instances of original research and synthesized conclusions to which you are referring. I am honestly at a loss here. Everything I have added is researched and cited, in fact there is not one paragraph that does not contain at least one wikilink. Our previous discussions have been very pleasant and helpful, thank you. I am still trying to figure out how I was at Gamble House and missed Bungalow heaven! My "subjective adjectives" are confined to the talk page, is that a problem? BTW I do not "disappear", please see my talk page. My "day off" is Sunday, so I am going to assess whether some of the material should be moved to the History of Pasadena. Happy Holidays! Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's OR to say Pasadena is self-sufficient (and unrealistic, since few—if any—cities in the world can make that claim nowadays). It's OR to call it a megalopolis (and, with a population of only 143,000, a bit far-fetched). It's OR to call Orange Grove Blvd "exclusive" and POV to state that it reads like a Who's Who. Even if those subjective statements cite sources (which they currently do not) the prose should attribute the statements to those sources, not present them as facts. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 22:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry, I do not understand the "roll over" comment. Would you please explain it?
I'm saying he is not required to agree with everything you say, or capitulate if he feels his position is correct, but that he does have to discuss it. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 22:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
This morning I made what I believe are productive edits. I edited and moved the "parrots" down. They are part of parcel of the culture in the SGV esp. Pasadena and are extensively documented, i.e. in the links I posted above, as well as a prominent mention in the City of Pasadena Website. I moved two sections to the history of Pasadena. Orange Grove Blvd. is far more than "nonsense" "with a few mansions here and there" as Kafziel can attest to. It is quite moving to be there on New Years Day within the float line-up, amongst all that history. I have edited and somewhat condensed those sections today. Everything is cited and/or linked to establish "verifiable content." I have done no OR in this article. I always respond to a "reasonable discussion" when I see one. Just talking, as the respected Kafziel has suggested, would be quite wonderful, and I sincerely hope this is a good start to that end. Just please speak to me, rather than in the third person as above. It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood as the dear departed Mr. Rogers always said :-D DocOfSoc (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
This is going nowhere and you're running circles around the issue, so I'll go ahead and request a third opinion. -Grayshi talk/contribs 19:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion

This is what was written on 3O page:
  1. Talk:Pasadena, California#Discussion - There is a dispute on whether the sections added in this edit constitute misc. trivia (some possibly original research) about the city and whether any of this is relevant to the article. 19:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The above editor has pointed you to an old edit which had been rewritten before this request Please see Article. TY.20:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)20:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (asked to look at this on my TP) Firstly, it seems that an editor(s) are forgetting about the "four tildes" when signing, not 3 or 5, but "the count shall be four" (Monty Python joke). Secondly, can this be brought from the level of general accusations down to specific problems? By that I mean problems with the article content, not problems with personalities. I do have to say that on first reading of the article, it seems to have some cruft in the nether sections, lacking references and looking a little like undue weight towards items that really could be considered fairly unimportant. The main thing to remember here is that the article should represent not what is dear to the hearts of the residents, but what is actually of interest to a worldwide readership. This will require a certain detachment from the actual subject, which perhaps I can provide. DocOfSoc, this applies a lot to you, if you can step back from your love of your own (I presume) community a bit, it is going to be helpful (and yeah, sorry, doesn't matter how much time and effort you spent on it, we keep the baby and toss the bathwater). Grayshi too, blanket removals aren't a good way to go at this point. Let's take it one point at a time and see where it goes. After reading the article, I have my own concerns (like using "nonpareil" in the lede, I mean really, "nonpareil"??) but I'd rather see you two outline where your concerns lie in specific detail. Franamax (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I am de-listing from WP:3O as you seem to have the matter well in hand, Franamax! :) Happy editing, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Franamax, You can always be counted on for a fair and unbiased opinion. No,it is not my community but I will admit proudly that the sister that just died was the Rose queen for the city where i grew up (Montebello) I feel pretty strongly about most of the entire SGV to be honest! I would very much like this to be brought down to specifics. I have rewritten this article twice,it was a mess when I first started it. My husband was also killed by malpractice there so i can see it from both sides."It Was the best of times. it was the worst of times." I would like ONE concrete suggestion other than "Lump."and other equally attractive words from Grayshi. OH, BTW WP:30 said use 5 tildes and I just copied it. In the 9 articles that "coincidentally" Grayshi decided to edit after i got there,and thats not including AfD, I have yet to be given one decent request for a specific problem. If by "cruft" you mean the parrots, they really are a big deal in most of this end of the state and well documented at that. Of the sections I edited i found one without a cite or a wiki link. I will fix that, and any others you request. I will trade you nonpareil for cruft ;-) it is THE perfect word (overeducated) and people might have to look it up and learn something. OTOH if you want it changed so it shall be. So much for a vocab lesson :-( While you are at it look up solipsist and see if anyone's picture is there LOL! As you well know , I have a lot of other work to do and would like to move on from this article and see who shows up, not to mention 7 month of zombie work. IMO, the article has much that is interesting for many people and is a good representation of this little metropolis. If you differ, and you will,  ;-) just tell me, I will fix it.
Happy Holidays! Sincerely DocOfSoc (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
changed nonpareil, you are right, it was a bit over the top. Have provided links requested. Sorry about the extraneous info above, that is another issue entirely to be addressed at a later time. Thank you for your input. More? DocOfSoc (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Admins, TY for all you input again. Kafziel, you re right about what appears to be OR and POV sentences. Since I didn't source them at the time and I willbe darned if i can find them again, so I have removed them. BTW Pasadena has totally revamped their website and I am finding it a tad difficult to find anything. Still looking for "exclusive" Orange Grove comment, altho around here it is a well known fact. If I can't find it, I will remove it. Same with "who's who", I don't make this stuff up! :-) Also TY for further explanation. Franamax still waiting to hear fro you re: further changes. I really do appreciate you gentleman and your opinions. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Found the reference site Yay! DocOfSoc (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Busy couple of days, but thanks for your review so far. I'll try to take another look tomorrow. The parrot bit, yes I did think there is a bit of undue weight there, given the length of discussion of the subject and speculation on whether they are migrated native birds or escaped captive birds. Feral and non-native species are not really that big of a deal in global terms, no matter how intersting they are for a local population. But I dunno - how much space does Rome give to all the cats in the city centre, how much does Vancouver have for coyotes? For a reader who lives where wild parrots are a common sight, a separate sub-section to discuss wild parrots wouldn't be interesting at all. It does seem worthy of mention, but to me, more suited to be in a prose section that bundles together some of all those sub-sections. I'll need more time to look at it again tomorrow, I guess, those are just quick thoughts. And nonpareil is a great word, I use it myself sometimes, but not when writing for Wikipedia (and it was a pretty bold claim too, so it's better you pulled it out completely unril it can be backed up). Franamax (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, for starters, the article has really long and boring section on Freeways. The Parrots are really quite a story and becoming more so as i research their idiosyncratic presence; the city website deems them worthy. I wanted to have the section rewritten for ya'll, but I am still sick, sorry. Am up too long, will now crash. Got some good stuff done tho'. bowing Namaste...oops fell overDocOfSoc (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Good morning, before i take my cough syrup, which makes me a little loopy, I did the research to which I was referring. BTW, Rome doesn't love its cats nor is Vancouver thrilled by their coyotes . ;-) In global terms, the phenomenal ( too peacocky?) growth and dissemination of the parrots throughout large parts of California is far more interesting and pertinent than the "advertisement like" section on where to shop in Pasadena. See here [3] on how people feel about the Parrots. Parents and kids alike run outside to see them when their cacophony is heard, and not just in Pasadena. The fact that they have flown so far in such multitudes from their beginnings in Pasadena IS worth more than a line or two.  :-D Oh and TY Franamax fro picking up "Demographics" that fell out of the moving van ;-) Doo dah fell out too  :-( DocOfSoc (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The freeway section needs some sourcing but it describes the transportation around the region, while the parrot section is some local trivia and superstition about how they came to live in Pasadena. You're conflicting your fascination with local subjects with the information that is relevant to the article. I doubt that a reader in Sydney is going to be at all concerned about the billionaires living on Orange Grove or the many stories about the parrots. -Grayshi talk/contribs 23:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you read it again. It is sourced thru out the southern part of the state. BTW my friend in Sydney, who grew up here, thinks it is terrific. You have been asked not to make personal comments, please restrain yourself, it is counterproductive. The concept here is to add to the article. Deleting and criticizing is not editing. Neither is hyperbole. May I suggest to all concerned to check the edit count? Have a nice day. DocOfSoc (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
And this is precisely the reason I'm unable to discuss this issue. You seem to think you are more privileged to edit an article because you or your friend lived there and you have a higher edit count; that's great. Their personal opinion is that it's terrific. Again, that's very nice. None of this matters for the discussion at hand. These are not personal comments; I am stating clear facts as I see them. Deleting is just as much of an edit as adding original research is.
Not once in this discussion have you bothered to respond to my concerns. You still aren't. Please do so instead of running around the issue and attacking me for making "personal comments". -Grayshi talk/contribs 20:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I always respond to a "reasonable discussion" when I see one... DocOfSoc (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Please show me one "concern" you have expressed that is not a negative personal opinion and I will be most happy to respond. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I've repeated my stance several times already in this talk page. If anyone was making negative personal opinions, it would include you, much more than anything I might have remarked. Please stop stalling and give reasons (which don't amount to "I like it" or "my friend likes it", as you have repeated dozens of times) why extensive paragraphs about parrots, etc. isn't undue weight. Enough with the adjectives. -Grayshi talk/contribs 23:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Grayshi, I refuse to be enticed into yet another edit war with you. Anyone reading this page will see your actions belie your words. The parrots, rather than being undue weight, are actually a national phenomenon, as is well documented in the article. I have extensively researched this article. I have sourced the article. I don't "stall", I work. Frankly, most of your hyperbolical claims, without any sources, leave me rather dumbfounded, so I tread very carefully. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Doc2, please stop following the road of discussing personalities of editors and the slights you perceive from their hand. I know it's hard, but I've often found it best to just stick to the bullet-points and ignore whether other people are doing so. Grayshi, this is a 3O request, so please provide some more detail. You may have already done so extensively, but could you summarize for my benefit?
As to the article itself, I can see lots of problems. The Freeways section is boring, but I bet you will find it was added by a US Highways project member. The Government section is badly fragmented (hint: if the heading takes more space than the sentences contained within, it shouldn't be a separate section). The Shopping section should also be made into unified prose. The Millionaire's Row/Historical residents part should be all rewritten into a less disjointed presentation. The Economy section is shameful, like, umm, what actual business sectors are there?
And really, the big one, if this is what the 3O request was about - a separate section titled "Rabbits" IMO is completely unwarranted. To stand up there with the Rose Bowl or the history and geography of the area, I think requires more than what is presented. Doc2, I think maybe you want to inject some "local colour" into articles to make them more interesting. I sort-of agree with you, but that is where sub-articles come into it. Maybe you have enough now for a standalone article, but what you have here is very much UNDUE weight. I would suggest moving it to the talk page and writing in a few sentences within perhaps the Culture section as a replacement. Also, the "Ornithologists..." sentence as I read this is quite confusing - the ancestor of any bird is a "wild, breeding bird", you are not specifying the timeframe for your definition of "ancestor". However, as before, I think this is way beyond the scope of this particular article. Franamax (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion. I respectfully disagree. The Parrots (Not Rabbits lol) have been in the article for over 6 years. [[4]] And, while not as important as the Rose Bowl, deserve their place in the sun ;-) Other stuff fixed. E-Mail update to follow tomorrow. Still sick :-( DocOfSoc (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Thought, the picture needs to be smaller, I don't know how to do that. Compromise: they ARE notable residents,eh?  :-D Back to bed !DocOfSoc (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Sick today, sorry. Manana. DocOfSoc (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Since DocOfSoc has yet to provide any valid reasoning as to why the sections should be kept, I'm going to go ahead and clean up the article. -Grayshi talk/contribs 19:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I am still sick. Discuss any changes here first please.23:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I can see that I've apparently wandered into what is an ongoing discussion over how best to present this article. DocOfSoc has made a number of edits that I think, as others do, are a combination of original research and POVish statements. This isn't a page for the Convention and Visitors Bureau, and non-encyclopedic information that's only tangentially related to the city of Pasadena (like the stuff about some weather station, which, if it belongs anywhere, belongs on the Ed Lewis page or on the Caltech page) shouldn't be included here. I just wanted to add my voice to that of others who've tried to steer this article back into something a little more encyclopedic. Esrever (klaT) 19:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I updated the local government section of the article because the page showed local government figures for Pasadena, Texas. I tried to replicate the section with figures for Pasadena, California. The section now shows the Pasadena, Texas, figures once again (see: 96.247.150.71, at 00:34, 3 January 2011). DrewMB (drewMB) 02:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Weather station

One doesn't get to make unilateral decisions about either the Nobel Laureates or the importance of the weather station without discussion here. It is used by NBC and it an important education tool in Pasadena i.e. Physical Geography at P.C.C. Please let's work in the spirit of Wikipedia as a team effort. Thank you. DocOfSoc (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That's weird Drew, will look again. Thank You!!DocOfSoc (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Good catch!DocOfSoc (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Drew can you read this report and correct figures? [5]it makes me cross eyed LOL. I need new glasses. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

AGAIN< Please stop making significant reverts without discussions here! Were I not restrained by civility, I would have a lot more to say. Cheers! DocOfSoc (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I don't think the Doo Dah Parade bit belongs in an article on Pasadena. As the section notes, it's a parody of the Rose Bowl Parade (so it should be in the Rose Bowl article) and it goes through East Pasadena (so it should be in the East Pasadena article). Why does it belong in this article? Esrever (klaT) 00:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Granted, it used to be in Pasadena, but even if it were still there, I'd argue that it's not notable. And even if it's notable, I'd argue that it's getting undue weight in the article. I don't think readers need to know that there's a 16-member group marching around in 3-piece suits. Esrever (klaT) 00:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Apparently you don't understand that "National attention" makes it notable. The 3 piece suits have been featured in National news as a highlight of the parade. This is the first year in East Pasadena after over 30 years in Pasadena! I invite you to attend in May if you have a sense of humor.DocOfSoc (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
So provide evidence of this "national attention" in the form of a reference from a reliable source, please. Esrever (klaT) 04:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, I would argue that the fact that it's moving to East Pasadena is yet again another reason that it doesn't belong in this article. Esrever (klaT) 04:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That is such fallacious reasoning, I will only respond to say, it has historically been in Pasadena for 33 years. The event in East Pasadena has not yet occurred Cheers...DocOfSoc (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • East Pasadena is Pasadena. Ucla90024 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you Ucla, that is much more succinct  ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Photos

  • Why two photos of City Hall from the same side? Ucla90024 (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I dunno Ucla, there is enough space between them , looks fine to me.DocOfSoc (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I should have asked: Do you have a suggestion? DocOfSoc (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • We could use an inside Rose Bowl picture than the same Rose Bowl sign photo used in other articles. Ucla90024 (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Notes

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_16850520 Although broke, Pasadena pays out big bucks to resigning top official

On New Years Day, Pasadena is of HIGH Importance. I don't it drops to low the next day Historically and currently, it is quite a "mini-metropolis, just ask them!" And no, I don't live there and never have. DocOfSoc (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Tournament of Roses

  • The Tournament of Roses Assoc. does not own the Rose Bowl or the Aquatic and tennis centers, nor the Brookside Golf Course, Kidspace Children's Museum, or the Jackie Robinson baseball field, all located near the football stadium. The Tournment built the stadium and then turned over to the City. The stadium is operated by the Rose Bowl Operating Company, with representatives from UCLA and the Tournament of Roses. The association owns the Rosemont Pavilion, the float building barn and picks the teams playing in the New Year's Day Rose Bowl game. Ucla90024 (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing merge discussion

Please note there is an ongoing merge discussion from August 2008 for Downtown Pasadena, California. It has been retagged here for discussion. If a merger is not required/wished please remove the tags from BOTH articles. JoshuaJohnLee talk softly, please 04:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Notable people

Didn't know "Parrots" are people. Ucla90024 (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Fifth to incorporate?

"Pasadena is the ninth-largest city in Los Angeles County, and on June 19, 1886, became the fifth to be incorporated in Los Angeles County, after Los Angeles (April 4, 1850), Anaheim (February 10, 1870) and Santa Ana (June 1, 1886)"

So, the fifth to incorporate after these other three cities? Is there a fourth, or should "fifth" read "fourth"? --Golbez (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not this is true, does all this detail belong in an opening paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.11.194 (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Pasadena, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

JPL

JPL does not actually fall in Pasadena. Yes it uses a Pasadena address, but it is pretty clear that the actual campus is in La Canada, and there are other reasons for the Pasadena address.[1] Apriestofgix (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It falls in both cities. - SantiLak (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/readers/2012/08/jpl-mars-curiosity-la-canada-flintridge.html

Pretty streets

I know that Pasadena has some very beautiful tree-lined streets. Know of any especially nice ones to recommend a sightseer?


Prospect Blvd off of North Orange Grove. Both sides of the Arroyo around the Rose bowl. Green St. in Old Town and Colorado Blvd. from Sierra Madre to San Gabriel Blvd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.229.233.102 (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Orange Grove Blvd., Los Robles Ave., El Molino Ave., California Blvd., San Pasqual St. and Sierra Madre Boulevard are a few.
if you're looking for something smaller, Belvidere Street off North Lake is also good (it has a tree canopy). It has a pond, as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samhuddy (talk • contribs) 03:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice

An edit was reverted here recently adding to the lede a translation in Cyrillic script of the city's name into Armenian. As the editor that made that edit added similar content to numerous US settlement articles, discussion of these edits has been centralized at Talk:Watertown, Massachusetts#Town's name to be translated or transliterated in other languages. You are encouraged to comment there. John from Idegon (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Old Weather Records

The Climate section has some outdated records. April, June and September all of the records as of 2000, but they have been broken since then. I tried putting a third source in there to reflect the changes I made, but failed. Here is the URL: http://weather-warehouse.com/WeatherHistory/PastWeatherData_Pasadena_Pasadena_CA_December.html If somebody could insert that, that would be great. Thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityscaper (talk • contribs) 02:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Pasadena city comparison

How does this city get to be the primary meaning of Pasadena?? Pasadena, Texas is larger. Does this city's article get 10 times the traffic of the Texas city's article?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

As far as population the difference is negligible. As far as notability, everyone who isn't from the vicinity of Pasadena, Texas would think Pasadena, California first. Most people don't even know that there's a Pasadena, Texas. --Cprice45 (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Why?? Was this city historically a significant city in California while the Texas city's name is new to the past 30 years?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Pasadena is a cultural center for the United States and is older and more notable. Notability determines which article you're taken to without disambiguation. --Cprice45 (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

For being older, I would agree that it can determine primary-topic dis-ambiguation only if the new name is a new name of the past 30 years. For being more notable, then how?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think any impartial person would come to the conclusion that Pasadena, TX is more notable than Pasadena, CA. Pasadena is home to the Rose Parade, Rose Bowl, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, the setting of The Big Bang Theory, and host of The Emmys for 20 years. --Cprice45 (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Pasadena, California. 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) 19:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Update the flag please!

big bang

While big bang theory is a really funny show, I don't believe that it qualifies as a scientific or cultural institution (yet). Gah4 (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Crime

All Wiki articles on cities need a new sub-section/chapter in the Contents labelled "Crime," which will show the change in crime rates every 10 years just as is done with the population charts for each city's changes in population over the decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starhistory22 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pasadena,_California/Archive_1&oldid=1185174919"