Talk:Los Angeles (disambiguation)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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 consensus to move this page, per the discussion below. This disambiguation page is not titled such that it is often accessed directly, it is true. However, it can be accessed by clicking the dablink at the top of Los Angeles, California, and it is generally (though not universally) agreed here that Los Angeles, California is the primary use of the term "Los Angeles". If you wish to make the distinction clearer, perhaps a sentence or two in the Los Angeles, California article describing the relationship of the city to the county and the metro area would be helpful. Dekimasuよ! 11:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

---

This should never have been the disambiguation page - it should have been at Los Angeles. That is what people would type into a search engine. Green Giant 20:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a survey for moving this page at Talk:Los_Angeles,_California#Proposal_to_move_disambiguation_page. Green Giant 22:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Which says to discuss it here. So the discussion headings have been added. Vegaswikian 23:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I put it there was the admins request but I am beginning to regret doing that. I have copied one comment over from that page to keep discussion here. Green Giant 00:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to make it clear I am not requesting that Los Angeles, California be moved. The proposal is to have the disambiguation page at Los Angeles so when someone searches for Los Angeles, the first Wikipedia page they come to is a disambiguation page at Los Angeles, from where they can select Los Angeles, California if that is what they were looking for or any of the several similar or the submarines. Not everybody is going to be looking for Los Angeles, California. I can't see what there is to oppose in this matter, neutrality would demand that Los Angeles should not simply be a redirect to Los Angeles, California when there are perfectly legitimate articles with similar names. Green Giant 17:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify. I'm quite sure most people will search for the city in California. Please verify that this fraction is under 75%. Georgia guy 17:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by a fraction of 75%. Basically I think it's confusing to have Los Angeles redirecting straight to Los Angeles, California. For example, not everybody looking for "Los Angeles" knows that the city referred to in Los Angeles, California is one of several cities in Los Angeles County, California, which in turn is one of two counties in the LA metropolitan area and one of five counties in the Greater Los Angeles Area CSA. I'm quite sure that many people think the Greater LA area is the city even if that is not the official definition. For more clarity, please look at how many hits there are for each of the possible interpretations of Los Angeles - Los Angeles (198,000,000), Los Angeles California (199,000,000), Greater Los Angeles Area (99,100,000), Los Angeles County (56,700,000), Los Angeles City (167,000,000). It would be much clearer to have Los Angeles as the disambiguation page and let readers decide which article they want to read. Green Giant 21:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Support

• Support - because uninformed readers should be able to search for "Los Angeles" and be directed to a proper disambiguation page instead of being redirected to Los Angeles, California. Who in their right mind is going to type in "Los Angeles (disambiguation)"? I mean apart from Wiki-geeks, who else? Green Giant 01:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Using that reasoning, we'd have to remove (disambiguation) from the name of every disambiguation page that included it.Masaruemoto 20:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Every case of articles with (disambiguation) in the title should be considered on it's own merits, but generally I don't agree with naming articles in this manner. For example, look at New York (disambiguation) - if you were to say "New York" to anyone without the word "city" or the word "state", some people would think you were referring to New York City and some would think you were referring to New York State. Am I the only one who thinks it is illogical to have the New York State article at New York when really it should be at New York State? I don't think people should be daunted by the prospect of there being hundreds of articles in a similar situation. Green Giant 21:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Is the state of New York called "New York", or "New York State"? There seems to be some inconsistency with these types of disambiguaton pages, because Las Vegas is a disambiguation page, when it probably should redirect to Las Vegas, Nevada (following the Los Angeles example). Masaruemoto 23:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's kind of dumb, but the big bone of contention there is that many people think of Las Vegas as referring to the Las Vegas Strip, parts of which are in the unincorporated Township of Paradise, Nevada. See Talk:Las Vegas#Requested move for more in-depth discussion, none of which seems to be applicable here. Ewlyahoocom 03:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• The state government website says "New York State" but not "State of New York" or just "New York". The state senate website refers to the "New York State Senate" but not "New York Senate" or "State of New York Senate" while the state assembly website does the same in it's case. I know the U.S. states article calls it the "State of New York" but I would favour the government website. Green Giant 00:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• Double oppose. Oppose both moving Los Angeles (disambiguation) to Los Angeles and having the discussion here as opposed to being at Talk:Los Angeles (disambiguation). Georgia guy 22:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Triple Oppose - The smoggy metropolis is most obviously the primary usage. Reginmund 01:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Compare to San Francisco. See also, Talk:San Francisco, California#Requested move. Ewlyahoocom 08:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry but this proposal is not about moving the city article to Los Angeles as your example of San Francisco suggests. It's about having the disambiguation page at Los Angeles. Green Giant 21:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • San Francisco redirects to San Francisco, California. Do you notice any similarity in having Los Angeles redirect to Los Angeles, California? See the above mentioned talk page for full discussion as to why this should be the case. Ewlyahoocom 03:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• I read the full discussion when you originally offered the comparison. All I can see is Georgia guy saying "This is the primary meaning. Other meanings can be found at San Francisco (disambiguation). Having this article at San Francisco, California leads people into thinking that this is not the primary meaning and that the dis-ambiguation page can be at San Francisco". That is not the case with "Los Angeles" because the primary meaning could be any of the three articles - Los Angeles, California, Los Angeles County, California or Greater Los Angeles Area. People from outside LA will not all be thinking of the city proper - I am quite sure some people think the Greater LA area is the city proper. The naming convention used for US cities means most of them are CITYNAME, STATE and that is not something I am arguing against. What I am arguing for is clarity, because I can see even in the "oppose" votes there is confusion. Reginmund and 70.55.84.13 oppose the proposal because "the smoggy metropolis/metro Los Angeles is obviously/clearly the primary usage", even though Los Angeles redirects to the article on the city proper whereas the "smoggy metropolis" is actually at either Los Angeles County, California or Greater Los Angeles Area. Please look at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page_naming_conventions which quite clearly states that it isn't mandatory to have the disambiguation page at "Term XYZ (disambiguation)". In the same way it isn't mandatory to keep this disambiguation page here when there is a primary name which isn't occupied by an article. Green Giant 13:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose metro Los Angeles is clearly primary meaning, and the redirect should _target it, instead of becoming a dab. 70.55.84.13 07:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Precisely which definition of "metro Los Angeles" do you mean? If it's the city proper then that's fine because the Los Angeles page already redirects there but the city proper isn't a metropolis. The actual metropolitan area includes LA City plus the rest of LA County and Orange County. There is also the five-county Greater Los Angeles Area which is also a defined metropolitan area. This is the core problem with all of these (disambiguation pages) - nobody is thinking from the perspective of the uninformed reader. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who has never lived in or anywhere near California but has heard of "Los Angeles". They might not know that LA proper is actually a small part of the Greater LA area. When they search for "Los Angeles" in Google or in the Wiki search bar to the left, it should take them to Los Angeles which should list any of the three main articles and allow the reader to select which definition they want to read about. Green Giant 13:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• No Rename - The fact that the City and County of Los Angeles aren't the same locations is enough of a reason. ----DanTD 23:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please explain what you mean by "the City and the County of Los Angeles aren't the same locations"? Are they physically separate? The City of Los Angeles is a subset of Los Angeles County, which is a subset of the LA Metropolitan Area (with Orange County), which is a subset of the Greater Los Angeles Area (LA County, Orange County and three other counties). I know this because I am an informed reader but Wikipedia must operate on the basis that readers don't know the first thing about the topic beyond it's name. You cannot assume that all users will be aware of the different definitions - some people think the Greater LA Area is the City of LA. The whole point of dab pages is to inform users that there is more than one article with that name. Since the three main articles on LA (the city, county and greater LA articles) could all legitimately claim to be the primary article on "Los Angeles" it makes sense to have a dab page at Los Angeles so that users can then see a list of all the possible articles related to the name "Los Angeles". How many readers do you think will search for "Los Angeles (disambiguation)" as opposed to "Los Angeles"? Green Giant 00:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussions

• By making a move like this, it forces the Los Angeles links to be disambiguated. I have no idea which of the at least 3 major articles is the primary. From past experience, a change like this creates a lot of work, but it also fixes a lot of redirects that are to the wrong article. Vegaswikian 23:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• As far as links goes, there are far fewer links to Los Angeles (disambiguation) compared to Los Angeles. I just do not see the justification for this page being the disambiguation page when the "Los Angeles" page is available. I could understand opposition if the "Los Angeles" was the city article but nobody has successfully created consensus for such a move and I doubt it will happen.

• Honestly, I am stunned that my simple request for a sensible dab page has been opposed by:

• One point blank oppose.
• Two oppose votes that don't seem to realise that Los Angeles does not redirect to "metro LA" but the city proper.
• One oppose vote that gave a comparison to San Francisco where there isn't one reason why my proposal is wrong.
• One vote which says "the City and County of Los Angeles aren't the same location".

• Can anyone give a sensible reason why uninformed readers should not search for "Los Angeles", click on the Wikipedia dab page and read that there are several possible definitions of that term and then select which one they wish to read about instead of being redirected straightaway to the article on the city proper and then having to click on the italics at the top of that article to see what the dab page is? Green Giant 00:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Cause there'd really be nothing to "disambiguate" to... I'd actually like to see this page develop along the lines of Kansas City, which is a summary style article covering both the cities and the metro area. Ewlyahoocom 01:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• If there is nothing to disambiguate to, then why does this Los Angeles (disambiguation) page exist? Bear in mind that I am not suggesting a change of content, just that we get rid of the bracketed "disambiguation" from the title. There are three main articles on Los Angeles and a whole host of related articles listed on this page. The minimum requirement for a dab page is two usages of the same name. That said however, I think your suggestion of a summary style article is an excellent idea and I would certainly support that over a redirect. Green Giant 01:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • When I say there's "nothing to disambiguate to" I'm referring to links to this article from other articles. For example, Independence Day (film) reads "...the wife of President Whitmore who is wounded while fleeing the destruction of Los Angeles, later dying of her injuries." Should this link disambiguate to:

A. Los Angeles, California,

B. Los Angeles County, California, or

C. Greater Los Angeles Area, or

D. none of the above?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Los_Angeles&limit=500&from=0 for a complete list of all the links that will need to be disambiguated if Los Angeles becomes a disambiguation page. Ewlyahoocom 01:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No Rename - The fact that the City and County of Los Angeles aren't the same locations is enough of a reason. ----DanTD 23:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please explain what you mean by "the City and the County of Los Angeles aren't the same locations"? Are they physically separate? The City of Los Angeles is a subset of Los Angeles County, which is a subset of the LA Metropolitan Area (with Orange County), which is a subset of the Greater Los Angeles Area (LA County, Orange County and three other counties). I know this because I am an informed reader but Wikipedia must operate on the basis that generally readers don't know the first thing about the topic beyond it's name. You cannot assume that all users will be aware of the different definitions - some people think the Greater LA Area is the City of LA. The whole point of dab pages is to inform users that there is more than one article with that name. Since the three main articles on LA (the city, county and greater LA articles) could all legitimately claim to be the primary article on "Los Angeles" it makes sense to have a dab page at Los Angeles so that users can then see a list of all the possible articles related to the name "Los Angeles". How many readers do you think will search for "Los Angeles (disambiguation)" as opposed to "Los Angeles"? Green Giant 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You said so yourself. "The City of Los Angeles is a subset of Los Angeles County, which is a subset of the LA Metropolitan Area (with Orange County), which is a subset of the Greater Los Angeles Area." That makes them separate from another. The same way the The City of Yonkers, is a subset of Westchester County, which is a subset of the New York Tri-State Area. Plus, there's all those other places in the world named Los Angeles, that aren't as well known as the City of Los Angeles. You might as well do the same thing to San Antonio, Texas, but in the process, you'd eliminate the fact that there's a San Antonio, Florida. ----DanTD 00:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please note I am not proposing to move the existing city proper article at [{Los Angeles, California]]. What I am proposing is to move the existing dab page from Los Angeles (disambiguation) to Los Angeles which at the moment redirects to Los Angeles, California and does not make clear that there other places called Los Angeles as well as several articles which have "Los Angeles" in the title. Green Giant 01:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I'd still like to keep the disambiguation. ----DanTD 04:44, 21 October 2007 (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.

Is los Angeles in the USA?

no, but for real is Los Angeles USA 2607:FB91:8882:4803:41EB:B5B7:C933:1AD5 (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)