Talk:Los Angeles Recreation and Park Commission

Confusing title and topic, suggestions
This is a very interesting topic, but title and content of this article gives the impression that the Los Angeles Park Commission came from the Playground Commission, when these were two separate organizations before 1947. It is also more accurate to call these two organizations the Park Department and the Playground and Recreation Department, both of these being headed by their own board of commissioners or commission.

It seems that in some sources, "commission" and "department" are interchanged and used synonymously. In the case of the article "Recreative Centers of Los Angeles," there is mention of the creation of the "commission" known as the "Board of Playground Commissioners"; later on page 211 (2 of the article) the following sentence is used: "The Park Department kindly filled the tract and presented it to the Playground Department." The annual report from 1908 does make explicit use of "Playground Commission," but it should be noted that this was published two years before the previously mentioned article and that it refers to itself as a Department several times as is the case of page 6 where the following sentence is used: "It is the aim of the Department to have all of its grounds equipped in time so that the Directors may be resident," and on page 33 where it says, "The children, teachers and Child Study Circle have given to the Playground Department $100 towards its equipment." In addition to this, the annual report makes several explicit mentions of the Park Department.

Moreover, the sentence, "The Los Angeles Recreation and Park Commission continues as an active body of governance with five appointed commissioners," and the final section "Governance" which describes the current Department of Recreation and Parks can further confuse readers into thinking that these two agencies were one single agency or organization that evolved into the current department.

The Playground Commission itself, synonymous with "Playground Department," is also a precursor to the agency called Department of Playground and Recreation in 1925 which had the same functions.

There are a few things that I think could be done to clear this up. First, and most importantly, it should be made clear that there are two independent departments being discussed here; while they did cooperate with each other, they were separate entities. With that, it should be determined how to title and organize the article.

It could be split into two articles, one for the Los Angeles Department of Parks and another for the Los Angeles Department of Playground and Recreation. I personally wouldn't encourage this as these articles would be pretty short unless more information is added.

The article could be kept to cover the history of both departments. This would require a new title. It may be called Los Angeles recreation and park departments, in lower case to make clear that the article is not the name of a department, rather that the departments that will be discussed were in charge of recreation and parks, and plural to make it clear that the article is not discussing a single entity. This would permit the article to cover both entities without confusion.

It is also possible that the scope of the article could be expanded with the title History of recreation and parks in Los Angeles. This would allow us to cover the general history of parks and recreational facilities in the city of Los Angeles, including the history of the management of these facilities including these departments. This would also allow us to cover history after 1947, when the current consolidated Department of Recreation and Parks was formed. (This article already does with mentions of the Encino Park in 1956). There is little precedent for articles covering the history of parks for specific cities; I was only able to find History of parks and gardens of Paris. But I think it would be ok to be bold and start one here. If not, then an article entitled Recreation and parks in Los Angeles may be warranted. There are more articles of this nature, so the existence of this kind of article would be more customary and would allow for an even greater scope than a history article. We would have to add more contemporary and general information on this topic. For examples we can see the articles Parks and recreation in Buffalo, New York, Parks in Chicago, and Recreation in Huntington, West Virginia.

TLDR: the article covers two agencies but gives the impression of it covering one. This should be clarified in the article and in the title. I would suggest expanding the scope of the article to cover the history of parks and recreation in Los Angeles or even further as a general article on Recreation and parks in Los Angeles. Christopher Arturo Aragón Vides (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Before I make any move to change the title, I'll start working on the article itself. For now, I'll change the opener and keep the scope of the article to focus on the two departments pre-1947 so that it better reflects the content of the article as it is right now. Christopher Arturo Aragón Vides (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)