User talk:Doncram/Sandbox4

Hey, maybe this list should be polished up and moved into mainspace sometime. Any one else have an opinion? doncram (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep trying to make dents in it whether its in the sandbox or mainspace. So whenever you think the time is right. Cbl62 (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(moved my comment from Cbl62 talk page): And, about the LAHCM list, i edited it a bit today only because i noticed it again, when you made an edit to it. Yes, it should be moved to mainspace sometime, or portion of it. Chunks of 250 each would be okay i guess. Or would chunks of 100 be better? Or 200? 250 is too long i think, for readers. Getting it ready is harder if that means adding coordinates for all to get the Google map working properly. Getting it ready is harder if we want to identify neighborhoods for all, first, too.

Also there is room and need for a separate article about LA Historical-Cultural Monuments generally, like there is a general article for NRHP and for National Historic Landmark. Go ahead and move or split the LAHCM list-article if you want to bring it out into mainspace. It would be nice to get some publicity for it, when it comes out, by having it be DYK ready and putting it up for that. I missed your putting the Pasadena list up for DYK by the way, but saw later that it was done. ~~About the LAHCM list article, let's move our continuing discussion to its talk page, to stay with the article, okay? You could move this entire comment there, and respond there.~~--moved. doncram (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it would be good to try to put it up for DYK when it's moved to Mainspace. In order to have it in the best possible shape for DYK, let's hold off a week or so. I'll continue working on the first 100-150 HCMs, so that we can hopefully move that group out as the first list. In addition to a generic LAHCM article, one concerning the LA Cultural Heritage Commission might be useful. Cbl62 (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created a starting overview article on Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments and have formatted the sandbox list to be moved to mainspace as a list of the first 150 sites. Since there are now about 900 sites, we could theoretically hit them all in six lists (1-150, 151-300, 301-450, 451-600, 601-750, and 751-900)

Okay, great start with the LAHCM article (to which i just created redirect "LAHCM"). I see that should be more than 150 words already and i assume you'll put it up for DYK? That would be good, then do the same for the first batch and perhaps each following batch of the list of LAHCMs.

About what batch size to use, i think 150 is better than 200 or 250, that is fine. Just to play a devil's advocate though, should we keep it in the same order but divide it by year ranges rather than by round numbers? Cutting it as 1962-1975 would cover 1-147 (assuming there is a typo in the date for #147 in the PDF list, or otherwise it is out of order). Or you mention the first decade in the article, covering 101. Should we cut it there? Or, would it serve readers better to have it organized by local area. Actually by geographic area would be better for readers, most probably, if you had to have just one set of lists.

However, this reminds me of the problem for wp:SHIPS huge List of Liberty ships. That was once a horribly duplicative and cut up set of lists, of them listed by name, in small chunks, and also of them listed by number, also in small chunks. I was involved in bringing them into their current format of 4 sortable tables, i think sorted by name as most commonly needed, but you can look up any given ship number by visiting at most 4 list-articles. For the LAHCMs, we can have them all in one list, at least for lookups. Perhaps one sortable table-list-article of all of them, with no photos (except one or two illustrations at the top, or a few side margin ones, but none in the table), with just number, name, address, neighborhood and date. I think that would be okay in one article, or the date could be dropped if necessary (it is similar to the number column). For the more leisurely reader browsing a photo-studded table with descriptions, I think organized by sets of neighborhoods in chunks of 100-150 would be most helpful. And the Google maps would work best with that. Perhaps downtown is one area, then east, west, north, south, pretty much, or dividing by 110 and 10 freeways. I am convincing myself that organizing geographically for a detail list is best by saying this out here.

However, temporarily organizing the detail list by 150-sized chunks, in number order, is also okay, even if we intend to reorganize them into geographically based chunks later. How do you feel about short-term goal of doing it by number-based chunks, and longer term converting it to geographically-based chunks?

Or go geo right away? That would require doing all the geo lookups up front, which could be more efficient overall in producing all of the intended stuff. But that might be too tedious to do at first. doncram (talk) 07:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of geographic lists a lot. And I agree with you that the most useful would group the LAHCMs into the major sections of the city rather than each of 25 or so neighborhoods. I'll throw out the following possibility for discussion:

LAHCMs in the San Fernando Valley
LAHCMs in Downtown Los Angles
LAHCMs in South Los Angeles
LAHCMs in East Los Angeles (including Boyle Heights)
LAHCMs in Northeast Los Angeles (including Highland Park, Montecito Heights, Eagle Rock)
LAHCMs in Hollywood and City Center (everything from downtown west to La Cienega, including Silverlake, Koreatown, Pico-Union, Westlake, Mid-Wilshire)
LAHCMS in West Los Angeles (including Palms, Westwood, Brentwood, Bel Air)
LAHCMS in Harbor Area (San Pedro and Wilmington)

The downside is that it is going to take A LOT of work before any single list is ready to go to Mainspace. Let me know what you think. Cbl62 (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This link will be a big help in doing geographic lists. [1] Cbl62 (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For discussion purposes, I started a San Fernando Valley list at List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in the San Fernando Valley. Cbl62 (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also started a westside HCM article at User:Cbl62/sandbox2 Cbl62 (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the HCM articles have been the product of our joint efforts, I submitted the following DYK hook as a joint submission:

... that a tower of 2,000 wooden Schlitz beer pallets described as "a rotting vestige of one man's egotism" that festers "like a sore on the community's body" is a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument? new articles, prepared jointly by doncram (talk · contribs) and Cbl62 (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]