Talk:Greater Los Angeles/Archive 1

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

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario

User le909 who removed all mention of the "Inland Empire" from this article is mistaken in his efforts. This article is not simply about the Los Angeles Metro, which includes only LA & Orange Counties and is home to roughly 13 million people, but this article refers to the "Southland", or the "Greater Los Angeles" Combined Statistical Area (CSA), which is far more inclusive, takes in the 5 counties in and around Los Angeles (Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside) and is home to more than 18 million people. Perhaps a new article should be started that is only about Metro L.A. and not Greater L.A. to avoid confusion. 69.225.127.48 01:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, to reiterate to the blockhead who goes by username "Le909": this article is about the 5 county Combined Statistical Area sprawling outward from Los Angeles. That 5 county CSA is called "Greater LA" or "The Southland", and it includes Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. That's what this article is about. What is so hard to comprehend about that? Get off your egocentric trip over the 909, it's embarassing.67.124.201.191 (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest it should be named back to Greater L.A. Area, The I.E. is a region of the greater L.A. Area!--Redspork02 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur with your move. Ameriquedialectics 21:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening comments

The map does not agree with the definition in the article. The definition only mentions Los Angeles and Orange Counties, the map also includes Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura. RickK 03:43, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I moved this page back to 'Greater Los Angeles Area'. It's not necessarily the best title, but I think the move to 'The Southland' was ill-advised. This term means nothing to anyone who's not a resident of the area in question; and in fact, I'm sure there's other places in the world that call themselves that.

I'm certainly open to a move to a better title, but I think 'The Southland' is NOT it. --Morven 10:50, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"The Southland" (although highly artificial) is the term most often used by the Los Angeles-centric media (i.e. the 'Los Angeles Times' and local TV stations) to refer to any region that extends beyond Los Angeles County. That makes it a valid emic description of the region. And in that regard, it's no less valid (even if equally obscure outside the area) as a Chicagoland. JoelWest 21:27, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As long as I can remember, the this 5-county region has always been referred to as Greater Los Angeles. It is the Los Angeles metro area, so the title is appropriate. Dcmcgov 19:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what is the definition of 'Anchor Cities' ? --Morven 10:52, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

like an anchor store in the mall

I'd like a source for the definition of "Greater Los Angeles Area." Most of the included areas are unpopulated mountains and desert. I'd only include the Southern parts of Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Mackerm 22:08, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The arbitary but definsible decision is to use counties as the units of analysis for the "Los Angeles Area." It's defensible because this is standard practice, as well as highly convenient. Unfortunaly two of the counties are absolutely enormous in size, and hence contain a lot land that is in no way shape or form part of anyone's definition of LA. However, because the area outside of LA is so sparsely populated, using counties shouldn't significantly exagerate population or other common urban measures. The urban areas in that region are basically all part of the LA area. Strider
The urban areas of the Inland Empire are also on the western edge of their counties... but I thought they were "greater LA" because they get reception of LA television and radio broadcasts.

Once again, it's totally ridiculous to include all of these counties in "Greater Los Angeles". It looks like somebody decided to apply a US Census category of the metropolitan area to an existing Wikipedia article. This is just wrong. I guess it's time to disambiguate. Mackerm 00:43, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with using a US Census category? These are professional statisticians and demographers who've been studying this for decades. What makes the amateur authors of Wikipedia more qualified than the pros? JoelWest 21:27, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Do you have a definition of "Greater Los Angeles"? It looks like some amateur Wikipedia author has applied that term to a Census statistical area. Mackerm 07:41, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
LA broadcast media market = greater LA?

What is the total population in this area? -- Kaihsu 17:06, 2004 May 10 (UTC)

The population/area numbers in this article are contradictory, or at least somewhat confusing. It says: the population of the Greater Los Angeles area is 17,545,623, and a total area of 87,972 km² (33,953 mi²)., but later it states a greater metropolitan area with a relatively high density of 7,070 people per square mile (2,730/km²). But 33,953 mi² * 7,070 people/mi² would be 240,047,710 people, or the other way round, 17,545,623 people/33,953 mi² would only be 516 people/mi². Can somebody check the numbers or specify more precisely which areas these number apply to? Luzian 09:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The 7070 per sq. mile density is for the urbanized area which has a population of 11.79 million in an area of 1670 sq. miles (figures are rounded off values of 2000 census data). Polaron 02:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I have concerns about the overgeneralizing of how people from Orange County relate to Los Angeles. As a longtime and current resident of Orange County, I would argue that there is no consensus on this issue. I will reflect this lack of consensus in the "Identity" section. I also question the statement "most people outside of Los Angeles County do not go there and therefore do not assimilate with it." The statement is questionable in its truthfulness and borders on opinion. Furthermore, why single out Orange County? One could make the same statement about other neighboring counties, such as Riverside County. I would argue that the whole diatribe about Orange County should be removed.

The introduction to the article says, "It is often referred to simply as L.A., especially by the residents of Los Angeles County and by outsiders." This may be semantics and hermenutics, but this seems to say that 'A' and everyone who is not 'A', i.e. everyone, calls this region L.A. Who's left to call it otherwise?

What about San Diego? It's close enough, why isn't it considered part of the "Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan Area"?

What about 20 to 50 years from now, when most of the state will be connected by high speed mag lev rail? With L.A. only 20 minutes away from S.F., wouldn't you consider them to both be part of one community?

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
noted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California#Requested Moves — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in support of the move

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Weak Oppose. Greater Los Angeles is normally considered to be the metropolitan area, while the Greater Los Angeles Area covers the 5-county area described here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    Should that Greater Los Angeles definition be added to the Greater Los Angeles Area article? Right now the intro just mentions the metropolitan area. Since Greater Los Angeles is a redirect, it really should be in the intro and bolded. Vegaswikian 03:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Sprawl

Leaving aside for the moment problems with other sections of the article, the "Sprawl" section is particularly muddled. Some sentences are so oddly written that I can't figure out exactly what they intended to say, and so I can't figure out exactly what to put into a rewrite. Also, there are many claims about the area's statistical characteristics, but few actual statistics to back them up. For example, is that part of the Santa Monica Mountains within the municipal limits of the city really so vast and so sparsely populated that it alters the city's (let alone the region's) population density statistics in any significant way? It sure doesn't look that way on a map.

The section also comes close to flat-out contradicting itself. Is L.A. very dense or is it not? Much of this confusion could be cleared up with some authoritative citations. What exactly is the population density of the Los Angeles area relative to that of those eastern cities mentioned? (L.A.'s regional density is given in the last paragraph, but without the context.) Exactly how dense is that dense area just south of the Santa Monica Mountains? Is that area the most densely populated section in the region? How does that area compare in density to the most densely populated areas of other large cities? How much of the region approaches that density? Lots of questions. The generalized reference link to the census bureau page at the end of the article isn't any help, as that page itself is probably incomprehensible to the average person. Whyaduck 22:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


I edited the section in an attempt to make it more coherent, and I added a reference link for the density statistic. I hope it helped. EmergentProperty 04:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This pages move

I think that this page should be located at "The Southland" rather than the Greater Los Angeles Area. Orange County holds a distinct identity, and is almost never refered to as the Greater Los Angeles Area. Neither are the Desert communities of Riverside. Almost all these areas are primarily referred to as The Southland, and only some are refered to as "The Greater Los Angeles Area" I will be moving the page, feel free to discuss the change. Rich in LA 18:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We couldn't use that title as is. There are many places called "Southland". At best it would have to be somehing like "Southland (California)". Have you reviewed the previous discussion, towards the top of the page? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard non-socal's call it "The Southland" and outside of The Southland everyone thinks of Orange and Chino and Fontana etc. as greater LA. Funny thing was in college (in San Diego) I heard LA natives call it the southland even though it was north! San Diego news and radio did not call it the southland that I recall, but I've been listening to KNX on the web and they have said "the Southland" like 5 time in the last 30 mins (and a sig alert at 1am!). Up here in norcal I heard someone say they went down to LA to go to Sea World (which is in San Diego). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.130.198 (talk) 08:10, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Commerical Airports

Right now the table of airports is fairly miscellaneous. Would it make more sense to include Commerical Airports as part of a general "Regional transtportation" section? The main article would still be Transportation of Los Angeles, and the material here would undoubtedly overlap with the execellent summary at Los Angeles, California#Transportation. However some duplication is inevitable with this kind of article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please include five more commercial airports in SouCal on the list.

Death Valley

Death Valley is a long way from L.A., and is not in the counties that we currently call "Greater L.A." Mt. Whitney is about the same distance, but we don't include it either. Perhaps we should keep the scope more limited. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I know Death Valley is pretty far, but I included it because it is located in San Bernardino and Inyo counties. The five counties in the Greater LA area include San Bernardino (and according to the articles map, apparently all the way to the Nevada border). Mt. Whitney is in different counties. I am fine removing Death Valley, but we probably need to define the Greater LA area better than the entire area of the counties, particularly going inland. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Badwater is in Inyo County. Only a tiny portion of Death Valley is in San Bernardino, a part that's well above sea level. I agree that including the whole of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, which stretch to the Nevada border, is overly broad. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I will revert my postings on Death Valley. I'll also keep on the look out for the lowest level in the realistic Greater LA area. Alanraywiki (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Correction, the SB border meets the 0' contour line in Death Valley, so it's conceivable that an acre of SB Co is a foot or so below sea level. lat=35.79184 lon=-116.55710. However it wouold be more convenient and realistic to use the shoreline as the low point for Greater L.A. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Transportation?

I took the liberty of creating an new navbox for Greater Los Angeles transportation; but I do feel it is somewhat lacking. Would anyone here be willing to help? I took the template from San Diego's Public Transportation template and expanded it to fit the needs. Hope my contribution would be greatly appreciated! (located at the bottom above the California navbox, or direct link here Transportation_in_Greater_Los_Angeles. This is my first major contribution to Wiki.. Frozenbrains 22:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

2 of the same??

I flagged the one section titled Urban areas of the region. It is the same as the section above it titled Components of the metropolitan area. they seem to carry the same info. What do u guys think?--Redspork02 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, one contains the same information as the other one, but the CSA represents a larger grouping. I edited the headings to make this more clear. Ameriquedialectics 23:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Principal cities

Obviously the list was created based on population, but nonetheless Beverly Hills and West Hollywood are conspicuous by their absence on the list. They may not be large in population, but I'd certianly consider them "principal". 68.146.41.232 (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the list is taken from the Census Bureau lists of "principal cities" for metropolitan areas. It is not based solely on population (note Huntington Beach is not listed), but rather on a variety of factors. Dtcomposer (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Principal cities are either large cities (>250,000 population) or cities where there are more jobs than employed residents, i.e. they attract workers from surrounding areas. Primarily residential suburbs are not principal cities even if they have a fairly large population. --Polaron | Talk 16:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Image size?

Editor User:Will Beback recently shrunk most of the photos here, commenting "(fmt - reduce pictures to thumbs - too many too big)".

It seems to me that the larger photos made the article much more attractive and visually appealing. Here's the former edit [1] -- see for yourself, and please comment.

It's not as if we're running out of electrons here... <G>

The same editor also removed a nice photo of the Blue Angels, commenting " (rm Blue Angeles pic -doesn't depict topic)". I'm unaware of any such requirement -- the photo depicts aviation,a (then) LA-area company's aircraft, and LA celebrities. Restored, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Will per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size, and also support the removal of the Blue Angels pic as irrelevant. Ameriquedialectics 03:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The pictures were running into each other and into the text. There are still readers with 800x600 screens so we should avoid hard-coding picture sizes. As for the Blue Angels picture, it doesn't depict an airport or any other physical feature of great Los Angeles, and could have been taken anywhere. There are so many landmarks that we can illustrate that I don't think we should waste space or bandwidth on less-valuable pictures. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
On 2nd thought, you're right about the Blue Angels photo. No problem with deleting it.
But the standard 180px thumbnails look AWFUL, and this is what 99% of users will see. We need a way to get better-looking pages, with some attention to old screens. Ideas? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Users with accounts can set their preferred thumbnail size, though I doubt that many do so. While I was digging up the "wide image" tmeplate I found some others that may help with the formatting on pages like this - Category:Graphic templates. For example, Template:StackImageRight, which I've never worked with, may allow large pictures without all the formatting hassles. "template:Wide image" is supposed to handle adjusting the image to the page size without having to hard-code it. I'm sure there are some solutions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanx for the tip! For now, I've reset my prefs to 300px <G>. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Boundaries

This is kind of arbitrary, but I think a plausible eastern boundary for the region in Riverside County could be the Pacific Crest Trail. This is where the urban sprawl kind of peters out and wilderness begins. The southern boundary is pretty well established as being the southern boundary of Riverside and Orange Counties, although it wouldn't follow the Riverside County line all the way to Arizona, instead turning northward where the county line meets the Pacific Crest Trail. The northern boundary is also well established as being the northern Los Angeles County line. All of Ventura County could be included in the region, or Ventura County could be split diagonally in half, with the regional boundary running from where Ventura, Los Angeles, and Kern Counties meet southwest to where the Ventura/Santa Barbara County line meets the Pacific Ocean. The split would include Ventura County's urban areas and exclude its rural areas. As for San Bernardino County, a similar line could be drawn from where Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Kern Counties meet southeast to where the Pacific Crest Trail crosses the San Bernardino/Riverside County line. Some slightly built up areas like Ojai in Ventura County and the Victor Valley area in San Bernardino County might end up straddling the regional boundaries, but they do seem like the right places where local identification with Los Angeles starts dropping to close to zero. So again, my somewhat arbitrary definition of the region would be all of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, the southeastern half of Ventura County, the southwestern corner of San Bernardino County, and the western fourth or third of Riverside County. Thoughts? Parthepan (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are the article shouldn't primarily focus on Los Angeles alone, the entire six-county metropolitian area is what the article discusses and analysizes on the geographical prespective. For example, the Greater Los Angeles (if you include Riverside County) area's lowest point of elevation should be the shore of the Salton Sea about 15 miles south of Indio, at about -165 feet below sea level. There's a similar issue on the Southern California article. +71.102.2.206 (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Discussing boundary changes, however reasonable, is a lost cause. See my answer to Killer Froggy below. EmergentProperty (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Urban Form

This section comes across as very defensive and non-NPV to this anonymous WP reader. Perhaps there have been debates here before about urban sprawl and density? The section makes many claims without providing sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.74.155.50 (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Inland Empire Cities moved from the LA template

The IE has its own template because the IE is not a region but a metro! I had removed these cities because the IE has its own, the LA template should focus more on the cities on the LA-Orange County-Ventura Area. And now SB is a main city just like Santa Ana, Long Beach, Riverside, SB is not thought of as a suburb but a city. House1090 (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say that I removed it to my old version, but i am thinking of creating a template of ALL of SoCal including San Diego and Imperial counties in stead of a Greater LA template (but the LA and IE templates will still exist just not the Greater LA) since wikipedia and the US Censes goes by Metro Area NOT Combined Metro Area. Please write your comments. Thanx- House1090 (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
This is the template I was talking above about all SoCal.

{{Southern California}} House1090 (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  • FYI, House1090 is the same guy as User:Ie909, discussed in the "Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario" section above, who for some reason thinks the IE is not a part of the GLA area. If there is no other opposition to removing the IE from the GLAA template and related articles I will not continue to revert him. Ameriquedialectics 02:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay Amerique I am not trying to start an edit war so I will not revert you. And for YOU FYI I do know that the IE is a part of the Grater LA but since there is an IE template the Greater LA Template should be for the LA Metro only not the Gr.LA area, there is very little about the LA-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metro here, so the template should go to that metro. House1090 (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to say that what I am trying to do is move the Template:Greater Los Angeles Area to the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metro. template beacuse that metro has very little information here on wiki. The Inland Empire has its own template, so we should just change the G. LA template to the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metro. template. House1090 (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
To begin with, the GLAA template, as far as I can tell, was developed for the GLAA article. The subject of the GLAA article properly concerns the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside Combined Statistical Area. But so far as the info box for this article uses MSA as opposed to CSA parameters, House may feel justified in reducing "Greater LA" to just "the LA area." Perhaps someone with more coding proficiency can rectify the info box problem. Until then, I leave it to the community. Ameriquedialectics 16:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I am just asking to move the GLAA template not the whole article, Amerique please dont switch my words around. House1090 (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I am Also saying that the GLAA Template Does not include all the cities in the IE like Palm Springs, Barstow, Needles, Indio, Yucca Valley, Victorville, ect. I bet you User:Amerique have not even heared half of these cities, now thats another reason why the GLAA Template should become the LAA Template. The IEMA Template includes all cities and towns in its own metro while the GLAA does not it only includes all of the cities in the LA metro and only some of the IE cities (way less than half). There is way more reasons why the GLAA Template should become the LAA Template. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I am making the move because alot of the IE cities are missing more than half to be exact and also it does not include SB as a mojor city when it clearly is! The IE template includes all of its cities, so this template should be the LA-OC-VC Template since it includes all the cities in LA-OC-VC (ventura county). If you dissagree with my edit please write it down here and we will have a discussion please dont revert until you explain your reason here and we come up with an answer. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Reverted to prior, default consensus version. Add some more IE cities, if you'd like. Ameriquedialectics 21:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Amerique, Amerique, why dont you? I took the time to REMAKE the IE template and remove the IE cities so the IE can have its own template, and if you want the IE to be included inthe LA Template then do it your self BUT until then do not revert my edit because it will lead to some false information. Now it is useless to have them merged the IE is its own metro (MSA), so is LA-OC (MSA), wiki and the US censes go by the MSA not the Combined metro area because if they did the IE would not be the 14th largest metro, but because it is it needs its own template....the IE is important so is the LA-OC metro thats why the each should have their own template, you know I'm right! itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
So why not create a LA area template rather than reduce "Greater LA" to just LA/OC/VC? Ameriquedialectics 00:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Because I all ready created it but you keep on changing it to GLAA when thier is no need for such a template! itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
House, I'm being as patient with you as I can. Why don't you run off and start arbitrarily removing adjacent counties from Template:SF Bay Area, Template:Chicagoland or Template:New_York_metropolitan_area? Those editors over there I'm sure will really appreciate your help. Ameriquedialectics 01:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay Amerique, I agree we have to work together, how about we make the GLAA template to LA-OC template we also change the SoCal Template and make it into the Southland Template, since the LA/OC and the IE metros are seperated thier all ready. I think that would be a great idea. Dont you? itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Afraid not. GLA naturally includes the OC, IE and VC. Reality is on my side. Ameriquedialectics 01:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Well thats what Im trying to do, Just take off San Diego and change the picture is all we/I have to do, that way LA/OC and the Southland will have thier own, ohh and like my addition to the New York Metropolitan Area template? You will be happy and so will I it works for both of us. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I have changed it Again because the new template divides the to metro areas IE and LA/OC which makes it more appropiate. Not the LA/OC metro has its own template and so does Greater LA or the Southland. I think this is better and more readable, sincce the 2 metros are not divided. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
No. Please learn to spell, also. Thanks, Ameriquedialectics 03:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Amerique I reverted it again, the other GLAA template was all ready there. I un did your edit because that template was mising to many cities in the Inland Empire. Now the one that I created does not and I especialy like the one I created because the two metros are seperated and it shows that 2 metros make up the Southland (GLAA) rather than just one. I would gladly agree and talk with an administrator. PS: Try not to be rude, I'm not to you! I spelled wrong because I was in a hurry because my son is really sick and I had to take him to the Loma Linda Childrens Hospital (yes I know I still need to work on my spelling but try to be nicer, I dont disrespect you) itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Responding to a request on my talk page; I am not much of a mediator, but I sense that everyone here wants to see this dispute resolved amicably. If you are looking for some help in breaking the deadlock, please perhaps post a message at WP:3O to ask for a third opinion on the matter. Another option, if that does not work out is to try to get informal mediation as described at WP:MEDCAB. In cases such as this, where two sides simply cannot come to an agreement, bringing in outside mediators can help work out a solution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I would be ok with any sort of 3rd party mediation, but don't think this has to go that far. As far as I understand House1090's position, he seems to think that because the IE constitutes a distinct metropolitan area, it's not a part of or should be considered separately from the "Greater Los Angeles" combined statistical area that this article and associated template are about. The GLA template as developed by User:Samhuddy, in my view, covers the region at an appropriate level of depth and abstractness comparable to the Template:SF Bay Area, Template:Chicagoland and Template:New_York_metropolitan_area templates that this user has also worked on. (I wish he felt more invested in defending his work!) House's template, named Template:Southern California, only demonstrates the extent of his bizarre view that the whole of Southern California exists as some kind of dichotomy between the IE and LA. I myself am only concerned that articles and associated templates reflect their subjects accurately and impartially. Samhuddy's model did this; House split off two counties and created a SoCal template that is obviously not accurate or reflective of either the GLA or Southern California. Ameriquedialectics 06:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I created my template because I want people to know that the Greater Los Angeles Area consists of two metropolitan area LA/OC and IE.... now Samhuddys version did not include all the IE cities, so I move the SOCAL template and created a new Southland Template which includes all the cities in the IE and LA and also the two metros are divide....to me that makes more sense! itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I came here from Wikipedia:Third opinion. In my view if this is going to be a template covering the Greater Los Angeles Area, it should include all the areas included in that article. At the same time I wonder if this template is even useful. It seems to only be included in five articles currently. The small towns already have a more useful county template. There is thus no need for them also to have this one. I'm no expert in this area, but to my mind a template listing, and being placed on, only the counties and sub regions would be the most useful version of this. - SimonP (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I agree, the template is only useful at a regional order of magnitude, for "county"-level articles and large towns as opposed to small municipalities. The references I've recently added to the article all discuss "Greater Los Angeles" as an economic construction relying on the resources of the five counties for continued growth and expansion. So, if no one else opposes, I will restore and continue to develop Samhuddy's version of the template. Ameriquedialectics 22:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I nomed Template:Southern California for TfD if anyone is interested. Ameriquedialectics 23:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I nomed Template: Greater Los Angeles Area forTfD if anyone is interested too. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


I really think the template should include all the areas or else should be deleted at once. I would also like the template to include San Bernardino in the major cities category because it really is. Amerique it will be your job to input all the cities in San Bernardino County as well as Riverside County (the template is missing more than half of the cities). This job must be done within a week because if its not it will lead to miss judgement of the area. PS: My template includes all the cities in the GLAA un like the version by Samhuddy. itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


The purpose of defining a region such as this is not to say that all the constituent parts are homogeneous. It's not even to say that all activity that takes place in its constituent parts is oriented towards the "downtown" or "center" of the region. Rather, the purpose is to recognize that, at national and global scales, this region functions (culturally, economically, in terms of transportation, media, etc) as a single unit. The Inland Empire and Orange County do not interact with the global economy as completely distinct units separate from Greater Los Angeles. EmergentProperty (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I liked your previous wording better. Wish you had shown up four months ago. Anyway, it's just one guy whose sole purpose on WP is to act as an IE/SB partisan. I probably will be requesting a topic ban on him at some point at WP:AN; he has a history: [2]. Ameriquedialectics 16:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not here to make friends but to contribute. Amerique, yes I may an ugly past but I have done some great contributions to the Inland Empire related articles. You just dont seem to agree with me EVER. For example the San Bernardino Valley article, you just started to revert me and deleting information with out knowing anything of my plans. The article was a stub, short and un organize, but look at it now it is full of information that a reader intrested in the area might want to know. As for your unnessesary comments I could very well talk to someone here about that because I dont need to here them, and you are so wrong judging with out knowing people. But if you what go a head request a topic ban on me at WP:AN. I know i wont be banned because you just sank to my level by reverting me rather than talking and trying to resolve the problem. House1090 (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
In time. Until three days ago, (your first ever referenced edit: [3]) all you've been doing is copying text from some articles and pasting it onto others. Within that capacity, you can do some good, (the LA area article you just put together looks ok) but other than that you've been editing, and reverting, based on beliefs of yours, rather than any understanding of sources or scholarship. However, I am curious to see what you can do with these other articles you say you are going to write, so I'll leave the AN request on hold for now. Ameriquedialectics 20:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I did it so the article can have more information. Well I will be rewriting most of them, mainly the SB Valley article. But I just recently found out how to add references 3-4 days ago. I started the LA Metro article because well it was the largest metro without a wikipeida article. And yes I hope on starting the Perris Valley article but I need to find out more information on it first. House1090 (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Killer Froggy

Santa Barbara is part of the Los Angeles area. 16375a92d874b75g83h759d3840 (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but we have to go by official designations in order to avoid endless battles over boundaries and inclusions. Just look at the above thread for an example of this kind of battle. The census defines this Combined Statistical Area as consisting of Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. There is no larger official region besides the state. Some geographers and other academics have begun to identify a larger urban region (called Bajalta California by some), but there aren't nearly enough different sources to cite to overcome the opposition that would be encountered on this page. EmergentProperty (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification requested on Geographical Imbalance template

Someone tagged this article for a geographical imbalance, but did not leave any guidance as to how the article is imbalanced? Could we get some idea as to the problems? If there are no concrete problems in this direction, then the tag should be removed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. House1090 (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. EmergentProperty (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference needed?

I'm referring to the statement quoted below in the Sports section. Would there be some reference needed for this statement?
"As a whole, the Los Angeles area has more national championships, all sports combined (college and professional), than any other city in the United States, with over four times as many championships as the entire state of Texas, and just over twice that of New York City."
Native94080 (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I found the reference and added it. SoCal L.A. (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Page move?

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No concensus after 19 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Greater Los Angeles Area → Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside area — I propose this page be moved to Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside metropolitan area (or something along those lines), and Greater Los Angeles/Greater Los Angeles Area be redirected to Los Angeles metropolitan area. This would bring the naming style in line with other large cities: Greater Chicago, Greater Washington, and Greater Seattle, just to name a few, all redirect to their respective metropolitan areas. The LA-LB-Riv article would be in the style of the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area article, which is also about a CSA. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 05:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Weak Change/Support I like the name Greater LA, but I like the changes you are requesting. I would say I am supporting this, for now. Although I would say change the name to Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside area, as this is not really a metro area but rather a combined statistical area (Combination of metropolitan areas). House1090 (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I support a merge with the Los Angeles metropolitan area for consistency like you stated. As you said This would bring the naming style in line with other large cities: Greater Chicago, Greater Washington, and Greater Seattle including Greater New York. SoCal L.A. (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC) just to name a few, all redirect to their respective metropolitan areas.

No merge was suggested and besides the Los Angeles metropolitan area is different with the LA-LB-Riv. CSA. House1090 (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Note:Greater New York does not exist. New York has two metropolitan related articles: New York metropolitan area and Tri-State Region. House1090 (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The merge was implied, but if you'd like, I can make it explicit: I am also proposing a merge.[apologies, I actually wasn't proposing a merge. I don't know what happened, my mind must've blanked. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 02:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC) ] And the two articles that House has linked to also fall in line with the proposed naming style: Greater New York disambiguates to New York metropolitan area and a term used in the 1800s, and the Tri-State Region refers to a much larger metropolitan area, just like the proposed LA-LB-Riv. CSA article. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 09:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree to merging Greater LA and the LA Metro articles (just saying). I slightly agree with a name change. House1090 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I think Greater Los Angeles should remain but disambiguate as does Greater New York. Information not already in the Riverside-San Bernardino and Los Angeles metropolitan area articles should be put in them. This is just my personal preference though. I am very flexible in the matter. SoCal L.A. (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I am in favor of this proposal combined with my original move Greater LA to LA-LB-Riv article proposal. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 02:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should wait, as I now think that the common name is Greater Los Angeles, so this article should be kept as is. Lets just wait to see what others think. House1090 (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The proposals are as follows,

1) Greater Los Angeles will redirect and become the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside page but disambiguate as does Greater New York. Information not already in the Riverside-San Bernardino and Los Angeles metropolitan area articles will be put in them.

2) Greater Los Angeles disambiguate as does Greater New York. Information not already in the Riverside-San Bernardino and Los Angeles metropolitan area articles will be put in them.

SoCal L.A. (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

will be put in them.

We still need to wait House1090 (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Tentatively agreeable towards a name change, but not quite at the moment. As I understand it, SoCal and TorriTorri are proposing to disambiguate "Greater Los Angeles Area" to a page that would read something like:

Greater Los Angeles may refer to:

I'm not exactly clear on the necessity of a disambiguation of this sort, if this is what you are intending. As I understand it, the Los Angeles metropolitan area article was initially developed by House to differentiate the immediate LA area as designated by the US Census from Inland Empire (California). At the time, I did not think that article was necessary, as all that article's pertinent information could be contained in this one, but after he created it he quit trying to remove information related to the IE from this article so I did not care if it existed.

I do not at the moment see the necessity for disambiguation, but I could be made agreeable with moving this article to "Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside metropolitan area" if there were also a broader consensus for moving the current LA area article to "Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana metropolitan area" and the Inland Empire article to "Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario metropolitan area," as only then would we be using consistent naming conventions. Ameriquedialectics 05:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Amerique I think they are trying to change it to Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside area as there is not such thing as a Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside metropolitan area (its a CSA). I agree with Amerique on this, but before a change is made, we should ask what others think, for example WikiProject Cailifornia, ect. House1090 (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, whatever the appropriate Census term would be. At the moment, I'm thinking WP:COMMONNAME applies and there are enough references to hold this article at "Greater Los Angeles" without need to disambiguate the various MSA articles. Ameriquedialectics 06:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Greater Los Angeles is a common name of both the LA metro area and the greater CSA. My original suggestion was to move this article to Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside area (or whatever title is agreed to by consensus) and have Greater Los Angeles redirect to LA metro area with a WP:HAT referring readers to the CSA article. This is the naming style used by the majority of big US cities, and I linked to examples in an earlier comment. However, having Greater Los Angeles disambiguate to Los Angeles metropolitan area and the CSA article would also be acceptable. I am not proposing changing the name of the LA metro area article. This isn't about using Census Bureau names; I merely proposed this for consistency with other large cities. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 18:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, doing that (redirecting "Greater Los Angeles" to LA metro area) would seem to imply that "Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside" was something other than GLA. The other big city metropolitan area articles are comfortable including both MSA and CSA parameters within them. In my opinion, the content of Los Angeles Metropolitan Area and Greater Los Angeles Area should probably be merged, whatever the agreed-upon namespace is. Ameriquedialectics 20:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should keep them separate as its less confusing. I like Torritorri's idea, although a merge could be possible we just need to see what others think maybe we should request a comment from WikiProject California, Los Angeles, and ask for a comment. At this point I agree with Torritorri, but I'm not sure if its the correct thinh to do. House1090 (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand Torritorri now. I completely agree. What i am getting is to redirect the content of this page to Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside and disambiguate the Greater Los Angeles page to be...

I believe it is the correct thing to do for consistency and correctness. Also Torri is that what your are saying? Even so, i like my plan above. SoCal L.A. (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirecting "GLA" to "LA-LB-R" would be different than redirecting GLA to a disambig page. Logically, you can not do both. And, the GLA as a combined statistical area covers the extent of all the MSAs; these are not unrelated articles on similarly named topics such as the page Inland Empire redirects to, or Greater New York, which reflects the specific history of amalgamating NYC with the cities and boroughs surrounding it. A disambiguation page is only appropriate if there are similarly named articles on different subjects, not for distinct topics that collectively make up a single subject. This article as it is already adequately explains the distinctions between the various components that collectively constitute "Greater Los Angeles," as Chicago metropolitan area also does without a need to "disambiguate" its component parts.
That being said, I am not opposed to redirecting GLA to "LA-LB-R metropolitan area"... but I am not particularly for it either. The content in the current Los Angeles metropolitan area should probably be merged with this one, however, whatever namespace is ultimately agreed on. Ameriquedialectics 00:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Weak oppose: I do support the idea of creating commonality among the different articles and I do support the motivation to use some objective standards. However, I do have concerns:
  • Using the OMB designations for naming articles is problematic. Though using definitions published by the federal government is a helpful way to focus discussion, these definitions are subject to change. Indeed the principal cities the OMB uses can change at any time. Do we rename the articles each time that happens?
  • The OMB designations are not "common" names and so violate the spirit of WP:NAME.
  • The local chambers of commerce and other local business and intergovernmental groups don't necessarily follow what the OMB designations say in their own definitions so following the OMB designations too strictly is misleading.
I would say that it is better to use recognizable names than go down this problematic route. Certainly the current pair of names is not good as they do not adequately differentiate the topics. Perhaps "Los Angeles-Orange County Area" and "Greater Los Angeles".
--Mcorazao (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I am not opposed to merging the two articles either. For most metro areas having more than one article for the varying definitions of the region is rather pointless. In this case there is a pretty dramatic difference in the populations covered by the two so there is some justification for saying an article on LA-OC is worthwhile (but if the distinction is going to be preserved the editors need to provide more of a differentiation in content, other than lists of cities). --Mcorazao (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why is there a factual accuracy tag?

There is a "Dispute" tag on this article because it has absolutly no reliable soutces that define its boundaries or what cities or counties are part of it.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Somebody is trying to define this amorphous area in Wikipedi, but why? To what purpose? For example, User:Moalli has pasted a link to this page on, it seems, every named place in the Southland (which is different from GLA), including the Channel Islands! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Moalli. What can we do to rid WP of this monstrous and unsourced article? In high dudgeon today, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Look at this page, too, while you are at it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moalli . Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It was already nominated for deletion, but there was no consensus. Perhaps a second time around would prove better.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It's defined by the census bureau as Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside metropolitan area.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Greater Los Angeles as a valid area designation

Wow! this page is really dense. I started a new topic in large part because I'm not sure where my comment would be best placed.

I have lived in GLA virtually my entire life. The area that seems to be referred to whenever this phrase is used in conversation or news broadcasts:

  • Los Angeles County, excluding the Antelope Valley and mountain areas, but including Canyon Country
  • Orange County
  • The Inland Empire as far east as the eastern boundary of Redlands
  • The developed southern area of Ventura County, including the Conejo and Simi Valleys and Ojai

This is a geographically contiguous area. With the exception of the cities east of Redlands, significant areas of open space separate this area from other built up areas in Southern California.

Greater Los Angeles is different from Metropolitan Los Angeles, which seems to roughly include most of the built-up area of Los Angeles County, i.e. the LA Basin and the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys; Metro LA includes the City of Los Angeles and all the other smaller cities within that area.

I do believe that Greater Los Angeles should be retained as a distinct entity. Generalized geographic area references often refer to similar areas, but usually have different enough scopes to merit existance. Therefore, I feel that templates for smaller areas are valid unto themselves, but do not invalidate the use of one to cover the entire GLA.

For example: the Inland Empire template is a valid one, but I feel that cities that fall within the larger area defined by GLA should be included in both templates and not forced to be one or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OLEF641 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Greater LA is known to be as far east as the Cucamonga Valley. House1090 (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is inaccurate. If you drive on the 10 or 210 freeways, the urbanized area is continguous from Claremont (Los Angeles County)/Montclair (San Bernardino County) until you reach Redlands and Yucaipa (near the eastern edge of San Bernardino Valley.)

From the 210 freeway you will travel through Azusa and San Dimas into Pomona (all in Los Angeles county) into Cucamonga valley. Upland and Rancho Cucamonga are directly continguous with the Los Angeles county cities, which are considered part of the Los Angeles metro area, despite being closer in size and proximity with the Inland Empire (Montclair and Ontario border one another, and Montclair is a small city) than they are with Los Angeles city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.189.86 (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge Los Angeles metropolitan area and Inland Empire (California) into this article?

Should the Los Angeles metropolitan area and Inland Empire (California) articles be merged into Greater Los Angeles? Here is my logic:

a) Combined statistical area articles and "extended metropolitan area" articles often cover all of their "metropolitan areas" or "divisions" in one large umbrella article, such is the case with the San Francisco Bay Area, New York metropolitan area, Greater São Paulo, and Chicago metropolitan area articles.

b) The size of the LA Metro article is a small 44 bytes while the IE article is twice the size at 88 bytes. Meanwhile the Greater Los Angeles area article is somewhat in between at 50 bytes. Since the Greater Los Angeles area seems to, in common usage, refer to the extended area, it would seem like a good idea to merge the two articles and greatly increase the size of this article while still using the invaluable information from the IE and LA metro articles.

c) It would get rid of the sometimes confusing disambiguation page titled Greater Los Angeles - as the LA Metro article would be merged into the Greater Los Angeles Area Article and would reduce the need to redirect to Inland Empire.

Thoughts are greatly appreciated on this matter. 08OceanBeachS.D. 02:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the welter of similar articles is confusing.   Will Beback  talk  03:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge - first, I think you mean kb, not bytes, but it's a relative term anyhow. These terms can be covered easily in one article. (my initial !vote was otherwise, but I thought through it and agree) tedder (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge - Two articles basically covering the same geographic area.--JOJ Hutton 03:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Sure. Seems like the logical thing to do. I'm expecting some sort of opposition from the IE Wikipedians, but they could surprise me. :-) Killiondude (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't see why both of the proposed articles to be merged cannot be sub-articles of the larger Greater Los Angeles Area. Both Los Angeles metropolitan area & Inland Empire (California) are sufficiently notable to warrant having their own articles, and therefore, it maybe only a matter of time before those articles are recreated. Furthermore, if both articles are merged at large, wouldn't the end merged article of Greater Los Angeles Area be large enough to warrant a split? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps. But it may be of interest to point out that county articles also exist, so in essence we have three very similar articles covering the same thing. 08OceanBeachS.D. 08:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Do not merge Los Angeles Metro. Area, as other metropolitan areas, needs its own article. It feeds more the reader more information about the area. House1090 (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Do not merge either article, for the reasons stated above. The IE is particularly notable in its own right, because of all the reasons (high pollution, high crime, large numbers of working-class people, etc.) anyone who can afford to live elsewhere better (e.g., Thousand Oaks, Santa Clarita, Laguna Niguel, etc.) will do so. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • 'Do not merge The Inland Empire is geographically, culturally, and somewhat climatically different than that of L.A./Orange/Ventura Counties. --Moreau36--Discuss 01:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • 'Do not merge for all the above excellent reasons. Would make for a very unwieldy article also, Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 06:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Split into two articles

This article is an uncomfortable shotgun marriage of two concepts: the casual, popular, organic and loosely defined Greater Los Angeles Area, and the precise federal census/management designation of Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA Combined Statistical Area. The two are not equivalent! The eastern edge of GLAA stops at Ontario in most popular definitions and does not usually include the cities of San Bernardino or Riverside. It does not usually include the Mojave Desert, or the Palm Desert, or Death Valley. Some observers see it smaller; they do not include San Fernando Valley to the north. Sometimes, however, the usage extends so far that it might as well be called the Southland or Southern California. This sloppy and varying definition is what we know as the Greater Los Angeles Area.

There is a precedent for splitting this kind of article. The San Francisco Bay Area has historically been thought of as composed of the 9 counties which include shoreline on the San Francisco Bay. The federal government specified a novel designation of 11 counties, two which do not touch the bay. Thus, the 11-county federal definition was split off into its own article: San Francisco Bay Area Combined Statistical Area. I propose doing the same for Los Angeles. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Another choice for the split-out article name is Greater Los Angeles Combined Statistical Area, similar to the one about San Francisco. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Earthquakes and Building Height

I removed, again, the reference to earthquakes as the reason Los Angeles has fewer highrises than other large cities. There are few highrises because they are zoned out of existence in nearly all areas of the metropolis. These zoning regulations are for the purpose of aesthetics and NIMBY opposition to traffic. Just think about it for a moment: if earthquakes prevented building tall structures, why are there any tall structures at all in Los Angeles? Earthquakes have nothing to do with it. If you want to re-insert the reference to earthquakes you'll need to cite a legitimate source. EmergentProperty (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Real estate

added a section to the "urban form" section about real estate, using information from a forbes article. let me know if you have any questions or concerns GoGatorMeds (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Greater Los Angeles Area. 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 03:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Greater Los Angeles Area. 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) 18:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Greater Los Angeles Area. 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) 05:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 27 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.(non-admin closure) Mahveotm (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


Greater Los Angeles Area → Greater Los Angeles – WP:CONCISE. James (talk/contribs) 16:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - Concise and consistent with the usage of that phrase in the names of several regional organizations. -- Netoholic @ 17:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - WP:CONCISE. --В²C ☎ 04:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - WP:CONCISE indeed. “Area” is meaningless wordiness. Also per the lede. There are many occurrences of “area” in the article that could do with either dropping or expansion. “Statistical area”, for which it often abbreviates, is not particularly interesting for many purposes. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
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.

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Highways

Hello, I noticed that the shields for current state highways like SR 55, SR 83, SR 164 (co-signed with SR 19) and SR 178, as well as historic US 395, are all missing. How many of these should be added, and how would one go about doing so? Pf1127 (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Planning to revert recent edits by User:Keizers due to failure to obtain consensus in advance

As the above discussion reveals, the consensus was strongly against a merger of the two articles. It was inappropriate for User:Keizers to act unilaterally without first challenging the points raised in the above discussion. Any objections before I revert all of those recent edits? --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The merge discussion was not carried out properly, or with the official template... the arguments were either "there are two units " (MSA and CSA) or ad hominem attacks, and as such it gave a window to WP:bebold if you look at the end result it is really really good and it makes sense. This is one metro area, which happens to have several definitions (with or without IE and Ventura), as most metro areas do. Other metro areas have ONE article which covers their metro area even though there are multiple definitions of it. The article should not be about the Census units per se, but about the metro *as it functions* (history of how it grew, metro economy, demographics, metro freeway system and rail, etc) - and these topics pertain to Greater LA, not a (frankly, antiquated), artificially defined unit of only LA and OC. Why not keep my (hours of) good work and open a split discussion instead.Keizers (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
An alternative would be for me to do some edits and leave the enhanced version of Greater LA article and have this be the leading article with all the main content, and restore LA Metropolitan Area as a short article stating its definition as the MSA and pointing users to the Greater LA article for the full content about topics relevant to the "real complete urban and suburban area", which we all know is the CSA ie Greater LA.Keizers (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Greater Los Angeles

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Greater Los Angeles's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "map":

  • From Fort MacArthur: Lower Reservation of Fort MacArthur (Map). available at Fort MacArthur Museum Archives: military publisher tbd. 1972. map published in Berhow/Gustafson 2002, p. 55.
  • From Port Hueneme, California: "Plat of Lots in Town of Hueneme" 3 MR 13. Ventura County Recorder Retrieved September 8, 2014 from CountyView GIS.
  • From Aliso Creek (Orange County): "Aliso Creek Watershed Elevation and Water Use". Orange County Watershed and Coastal Resources Division. Archived from the original on 2007-10-21. Retrieved 2009-05-03.
  • From Coyote Creek (San Gabriel River tributary): "Coyote Creek Watershed and Elevation Ranges". Watershed and Coastal Resources Division of Orange County. ocwatersheds.com. Archived from the original on 16 May 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-29.
  • From San Juan Creek: "San Juan Creek Watershed and Elevation Ranges (Map)". Watershed and Coastal Resources Division of Orange County. www.ocwatersheds.com. Archived from the original on May 17, 2008. Retrieved 2009-06-08.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Los Angeles metropolitan area

The article Los Angeles metropolitan area is being proposed for merging with Greater Los Angeles. They are essentially synonymous. What the Census Bureau has defined are the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area and the Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA Combined Statistical Area. There is no Census definition for "Greater Los Angeles". And as a resident of Greater Los Angeles, I know that the term "Greater Los Angeles" is more commonly used than "Los Angeles metropolitan area". Not to mention, most cities have only one article for the "metropolitan" and "greater" areas. For example, Boston metropolitan area redirects to Greater Boston, Greater Chicago redirects to Chicago metropolitan area, Greater Atlanta redirects to Atlanta metropolitan area and Greater Denver redirects to Denver metropolitan area.

And regardless of the Census Bureau's attempts to define the metropolitan/greater Los Angeles area, San Bernardino and Riverside counties extend all the way to the Nevada/Arizona border, over 200 miles from downtown Los Angeles and much closer to Las Vegas. I'm not so sure if this would be considered by most Southern Californians to be part of Greater Los Angeles. Metropolitan areas are abstract concepts: When you go from Ventura County to Los Angeles County, you won't see a sign saying "Welcome to the Los Angeles metropolitan area", but you will see a sign that says "Los Angeles County Line". These articles are essentially redundant: included in the list of metropolitan attractions are Mission San Buenaventura in Ventura County and Big Bear Lake in San Bernardino County, which are supposedly not part of the Los Angeles metropolitan area. This, essentially, is a WP:CONTENTFORK of Greater Los Angeles. Sanjay7373 (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  1. This isn't proper form for a merge proposal.
  2. It's not clear what you are proposing.
  3. Where you live has no relevance.
  4. What policy and source based reasons are you proposing whatever it is you are proposing? John from Idegon (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I corrected my merge proposal to be clearer about the pages I am merging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjay7373 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Still unconvincing. Anyone who's lived in LA for any length of time would be aware that most local residents distinguish between metro LA (or the Southland) and Greater Los Angeles, which includes adjacent contiguous areas like the OC and the IE. This distinction has been most commonly seen in maps, such as the Auto Club maps for Metropolitan Los Angeles versus Greater Los Angeles. The metro LA map was always much more tightly focused on the City of Los Angeles than the Greater LA map. And if you don't understand the cultural importance of the Automobile Club of Southern California, then you definitely have not lived long enough in Los Angeles. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@Coolcaesar: According to the Los Angeles metropolitan area article, Orange County is part of the Los Angeles metropolitan area. According to this CityLab article, "Greater Los Angeles as a concept is generally understandable, but not within the precision of the city’s hard borders. One way to put that “greater” into context is through the concept of the Metropolitan Area...The U.S. Office of Management and Budget has created a definition of these places – Metropolitan Statistical Areas – to aid in the digestion of information like that collected in the decennial Census." So, it's essentially saying that Greater Los Angeles can be defined using the metropolitan statistical area, which is completely at odds with the article that says that Greater Los Angeles is a combined statistical area. Even if metropolitan and greater Los Angeles are not the same exact thing, they are similar enough to be placed in one article just like we have done with every other metropolitan area. Sanjay7373 (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
And if you actually take a look, that was Nate Berg's very first article for CityLab. You completely misread the article for the opposite of what Berg was actually saying. Go refresh your memory on close reading (a skill which I started to acquire around age 12 and mastered by age 25). Berg never says that Greater Los Angeles can be "defined using" the MSA, as you so clumsily put it. He strongly implies that doing precisely that is highly inaccurate because Greater Los Angeles is much bigger than the MSA: "For statistical purposes, including Riverside (and San Bernardino, and Fontana, and Redlands) is just too inconvenient. But in economic, commuting, and plainly physical terms, these places are just as connected to Greater Los Angeles as cities in Orange and L.A. counties."
If you had bothered to look around, there are lots of sources that include other outlying counties besides Orange as part of Greater Los Angeles (and thereby imply it is something bigger than metropolitan Los Angeles), such as this classic map in the David Rumsey Map Collection, this travel guide, and this ethnographic book.
Unless you've taken and passed a college-level human geography course (which I have), you are far out of your depth on this topic. Stick to what you know. It's important to be aware of what you don't know you don't know. That's what you've crashed into here. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Remember, this is a merge proposal, please clarify if you support or oppose the merge by saying "Support" or "Oppose".
It really doesn't matter whether Greater Los Angeles and Metropolitan Los Angeles are exactly the same thing. Even if they're not exactly the same, the concepts are similar enough that they belong in a single article, much as we have done with every other metropolitan area. Metropolitan areas are abstract concepts. The CityLab article even says that counties aren't a great unit of analysis because counties are so large in the west. I assume that when you say "metropolitan Los Angeles" you're simply referring to Los Angeles County. Sanjay7373 (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
If it's not obvious enough, my response is oppose. You don't have any meaningful response to my position above, so your fallback position is to say it doesn't matter. Which is nonsense.
The truth is that you're confusing apples with oranges because you don't understand what is a metropolitan area. Yes, these are abstract concepts, but there is a very clear difference between Greater Los Angeles and the Los Angeles metropolitan area. It's also clear at this point that you haven't lived in LA long enough (if at all) to comprehend the distinction.
Metropolitan Los Angeles is southern Los Angeles County (south of Santa Clarita) at a minimum. Many would argue it includes contiguous portions of Orange County.
Greater Los Angeles usually includes the entire urbanized sprawl from Ventura to San Bernardino, and from Castaic down to San Luis Capistrano, but does not include San Diego because Camp Pendleton is in the way. Not hard at all. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it was obvious enough, I just think that it's customary to write "support" or "oppose" before your response. Yes, I have lived in Greater Los Angeles my entire life. All I'm saying is that there needs to just be one article for Metropolitan Los Angeles and Greater Los Angeles. A metropolitan area is not the same thing as a metropolitan statistical area. And Greater Los Angeles is not exactly the same thing as the Los Angeles Combined Statistical Area, which extends all the way to the Nevada and Arizona state lines. Sanjay7373 (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The Greater Los Angeles area isn't the same as the metropolitan area, the greater area includes 5 counties, while the metropolitan area only includes 2 counties, so merging them wouldn't make any sense in my opinion. Also I've been living here for over 23 years, plus I was born here.47.152.150.201 (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • oppose the merger. Redspork02 (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I OPPOSED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B049:DB70:A56B:3D2C:FA80:BB02 (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • !oppose because of content Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • oppose diff. entities. 89.12.32.44 (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I have changed my mind on the proposed merger. However, I continue to believe that this article's definition of Greater Los Angeles is very artificial. As a resident of Greater Los Angeles (Santa Clarita to be precise) I understand the Los Angeles metropolitan area as consisting of the LA basin, San Fernando and San Gabriel valleys, and Orange County. Greater Los Angeles includes that as well as the Santa Clarita Valley, the Inland Empire (the portion of San Bernardino and Riverside counties south of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains and west of the San Jacinto Mountains), and Ventura County south of the Los Padres National Forest - possibly including parts of the high desert to the north (Palmdale-Lancaster and Victorville-Hesperia areas). This article would have you believe that Greater Los Angeles consists of all of LA, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties - including far-flung desert communities such as Barstow, Baker, Needles, Trona, etc. Greater Los Angeles does not cover 33,954 square miles; most of that area is part of the deserts of San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Much of those areas are over 100 miles from the urban sprawl of Greater LA. A metropolitan area is not the same thing as a "metropolitan statistical area." Sanjay7373 (talk) 07:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Sanjay, I see your point and agree in terms of what i instincitvely understand Greater LA to be, but we do need to find references for this usage in reliable sources in order to state it. At first glance, a simple Google search, I don't see any. This doesnt surprise me because the only major well-defined definition for boundaries are the political ones, which I agree can be very artificial. We would probably have to search for some rare academic study about where suburbs and exurbs end and where rural areas begin, if it exists. I will hunt when I have time, have you come across them? Academic journals, books, serious magazines and newspapers? Keizers (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Politics

'In recent years' - when, especially given that the Presidential election results only go up to 2010. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greater_Los_Angeles/Archive_1&oldid=1217545643"