Talk:Los Angeles metropolitan area/Archive 1

Article Creation
Created Article, needs alot of work and needs more information. House1090 (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As usual i beefed up the article. No where near as good as the New York metropolitan area article but it's a good start now. Should we make it aware on talk:wikiproject california? SoCal L.A. (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yea, I dont know much about the LA metro it self to make major contrbutons, but this will be my next project. I will be doing a lot of research to get this article into better shape. House1090 (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

CSA
I deleted the CSA info because that info was already in the Greater Los Angeles article, besideds what is it doing here? House1090 (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct, it is in the GLA article however as a globally known metropolitan area with a world city this article needs that information, only a small part though, which is what is in there now. It doesn't threaten the GLA article due to its small size reference. Hardly something worth deleting. Also it is consistent with the New York metropolitan area and Chicago metropolitan area (both of which have global cities). Wiki needs consistency in related articles. In this case metropolitan areas. SoCal L.A. (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Only because Chicago and New York has it it does not mean this one should too. It has nothing to do with this. Why did you put the list of urban areas? If people are intrested in the list of surrounding areas they would follow the GLA ink on the see also section. House1090 (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * House i believe i already explained to you the importance of consistency. It in fact does since they are both major global cities with globally known metropolitan areas. SoCal L.A. (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay Chicago is a joint metro article about both the MSA and CSA, and that does not give you the right to revert me ask for a 3O. Besides NY Metro nor Chicagoland are FA status for you to go by there outline. House1090 (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I already asked for a 3O, and besides what your doing is recreating another article, a lot of that information is wrong. You just copyed and paste. I truely believe that info does not belong here if its in another article, that gets more traffic than this one. House1090 (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Different versions are here:

Socal LA copyed and pasted from here: Is there any copywrite policy here on wikipedia? hum, House1090 (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 1)


 * There is a copy and paste rule for outside information. That information is from the GLAA page so it shouldn't be incorrect. I am not using those articles as FA but i am just being consistent. I am not recreating another article since i have hardly any information on the GLAA. This article will get more traffic as it grows in size. SoCal L.A. (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * THIS IS NOT ABOUT GREATER LA but about LA Metro that is the reason why I created it. Then we should just merge this into GLA, since MOST like 80% of this is from GLA. House1090 (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I do wish you wouldn't type in all caps. Very unprofessional. I understand that this article isn't about GLAA, otherwise it would be titled so. The only part you have a problem with is a portion of the whole article that states that LA metro is part of a large CSA (about 5%). Which of course makes no sense since it is indeed an important fact about the Los Angeles metropolitan area. SoCal L.A. (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I did so you would get the part that I wanted you to get, its like a bold. And besides I dont have a problem with it I have a problem that you just copy and paste info thats in different article. Its copywrite even if its within wiki. House1090 (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am running out of ways to explain this to you. Interesting change of mind as from your above posts it seems that you do care about it, or did to say the least. As far copying and pasting, there is hardly another way to rephrase a bulleted list. SoCal L.A. (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Because it does not belong here, thats why we have things like "See Also Greater Los Angeles Area". House1090 (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So you do have a problem with it. Well it in fact does belong here since ..."...since it is indeed an important fact about the Los Angeles metropolitan area, [that it is part of the GLAA with two adjacent metropolitan areas]" SoCal L.A. (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I already got a User to take a look so were just need to be patient. Then I will continue this. House1090 (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's great. I did to. SoCal L.A. (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion #1
This is a 3rd opinion, an outside opinion meant to help. It should in no way be taken as authoritative and is simply meant to informally help to resolve a dispute that one or more users have requested help with.

First, everybody chill. Fighting over whether a person cares or not, putting things in all caps, calling people out for putting something in all caps, etc. really isn't getting us anywhere. I have done it before too, we are all guilty of it from time to time, but it does not work. So, please assume good faith. Please assume that other editors are trying to improve the article.

The main dispute as I read this is about whether information that is in another article on L.A. should be in this article as well. SoCal L.A. makes a convincing case that this is important information to have because people want the info in one stop in a bigger article, that this conforms to articles on New York and Chicago (consistency across similar articles is important), and that as it is only a few sentences it does not overshadow the other L.A. article. This seems reasonable to me, and I would generally err on the side of having a small amount of info overlap between two articles on roughly the same topic rather than have a user unable to find the info they want in the main article. But, that is just my 2 cents: have a conversation with each other that assumes good faith and figure out a solution that works for all parties. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion #2
"This is a 3rd opinion, an outside opinion meant to help. It should in no way be taken as authoritative and is simply meant to informally help to resolve a dispute that one or more users have requested help with."

First, congratulations to the two editors who requested this WP:3O─for asking for the opinions, and most of all for your obvious dedication to this article. You've done a fine job of pulling together its contents. It is generally well-written.

Second, I agree with User:Wikipediatoperfection's sage recommendations. I'm still not sure what it might hurt to include the information from the other article, nor why including it has generated such strong opinions and feelings. But then, I'm not from Southern Cal and don't know the politics, traditions, etc. Since the series is a taxonomy working its way outward from L.A. proper to the next larger to the next larger metro statistical areas (MSA), are you saying, SoCal L.A., that each article should include the equivalent stats from the immediately preceding smaller MSA? I suppose that could become awkward if it goes much further outward since we're already up to Level III (L.A., L.A. Metro, Greater L.A.) Would you next go to the Southern Cal MSAs? Bottom line: if there is a consistency among the L.A. articles, that seems more important than being in sync with Chicago, NY, etc., but there's nothing wrong with that, either.

Third, I know of no copyright issue from one Wiki article to another. In fact, Wiki provides an easy way to transclude entire sections from one article to another. A classic example is Pathology. Except for the lead, the entire article is a series of transclusions, like this: ==History of pathology==

Since population stats are ever changing, there is a big advantage to using transclusion rather than copy, especially with the 2010 Census data coming out piecemeal for the next 2-3 years, and then still being revised.

Please get back with me if I misunderstand your situation or your respective opinions on include or not include the bullet chart. My best to you and the articles, ─AFAprof01 (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay I feel having the urban areas is to much, do you guys think we can remove at least that? House1090 (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you guys very much for your opinions and i appreciate your time. I believe we can declare this solved. SoCal L.A. (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * House that information is also part of the CSA area (the dispute you have). I don't understand why you would want to take information off of a page that needs it. Also as they stated earlier users will want to be able to get the gist of a section without reading a whole article. SoCal L.A. (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Subway, Commuter, Train information?
I know there is, or was, a subway system in the westwood area. I think that we should work on getting more information on transport since LA is known for its suburban sprawly and transportation system, most notably its interstates. SoCal L.A. (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See Los Angeles County Metro Rail about Red Line and Purple Line. It looks like neither of those subway lines go to Westwood, but the article shows where they go from Union Station. Alanraywiki (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link. I could have sworn there was. Guess not. Thanks again. SoCal L.A. (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Rankings of County
I had the rankings of the counties next to the specific counties in parentheses and house removed them without a edit summary. I just wanted to here what others had to say and he/she has two say before reverting it. SoCal L.A. (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Trying to be impartial, but your position would be improved if you provided references for your information. Also, try to consider where your data would be most appropriate, here or the even more macro-cosmic Greater Los Angeles Area article. Amerique dialectics  01:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yea I forgot to add it in. I did not feel that was nessacary if you just name the counties in order from largest to smallest. Personally, it look a little tacky to me. House1090 (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * True. Thanks for your input Amerique. SoCal L.A. (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Urban areas of the region
The lead section states that the Los Angeles metropolitan area is "defined as consisting of the two counties, Los Angeles and Orange." If that is the case, why is there a table that includes cities from counties other than LA or OC under urban areas of the region? Thanks Alanraywiki (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you thats what I have been trying to tell to SoCal LA, but he reverted my unfinished comment and its now lost, ugh I am so frustrated. He says that because the reader might be intrestead in knowing that. The I said that if they were they can look at the Greater LA article. The current information might just make the reader think that those urban areas are in the LA metro. I would like to say that we can turn that into the metropolitan divisions within the LA metro. How does that sound? House1090 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * May I add that he (SoCal LA) just copied and paste, he did not bother to at least fix the information. For example there were IE malls in this article, that you (Alanraywiki) took off. House1090 (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It refers to areas of the GLAA. Part of the disputed CSA area. House if i may add one more thing perhaps you would like to contribute to the article instead of taking things off of it. I am much to busy fixing articles to always have a small dispute with you over something not worth arguing over. SoCal L.A. (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also i believe it states that those regions comprise the GLAA in the sentence above. SoCal L.A. (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I rather have a small, nice, reliable article than a messy, long, unreliable one, in other words an article with so much confusion that might become a lie or make the reader think some thing else. As for "I am much to busy fixing articles to always have a small dispute with you over something not worth arguing over." Wikipedia does not have a dealine. Alanraywiki tought me that, and I know how much trouble I cause by doing the same thing. And if this is not fighting why are you reverting me? NNow I know why you copyed and paste you dont care. I know you are trying to help this article by expanding it, but copy and pase is not the answer, use a sand box, you can rearrange it in your own words. Any ways two agree that urban areas in the CSA does not belonge here and it shoud stay in the GLA article. I guess I can remove it now. House1090 (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The user hasn't said that. Only implied to say the least. If you remove that i will revert. You are wrong i do care. This is not a personal matter though. The article is not long and unreliable. I have not reverted you at all. Only clean the article. SoCal L.A. (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thats why I have not done nothing yet I left the user a message. And if you do care please dont say you are to busy for this. House1090 (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait why is it that you can revert me but I cant revert you? Definitely doing something about this. House1090 (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To busy to be arguing over article content that clearly goes in the opinion. I have already added and Economy and Area Codes section. You had two 30's and yet you still want to remove something that contributes to the reliability and scope of the article. The only contributions i have seen you make, aside from initial creation, are changing pictures and adding a word or to. If you really are going to make the article i would suggest start doing research as you stated earlier and add information instead of making controversy at every corner. I only recently just learned about your "contract". However i only revert, very few, when you do something like delete information that ended up being O.K.'d by other users. SoCal L.A. (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I'm trying to clean up after your good faith mess. By the may good job its looking better. I will shape it up more though. And I dont have all the time in the world I'm trying to earn my masters in education, so when I am here I waste my time cleaning up. House1090 (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

SoCal L.A. asked me to take another look at the page. My 3rd opinion remains the same. Everybody needs to take a chill pill, which apparently according to Wikipedia was the name of an album by the band Warrior Soul, but is that really where the expression comes from? If you're not laughing right now, I suggest you go watch Kill Bill and get any pent up frustration out through watching some really cool fight scences. So, everybody take a chill pill, watch Kill Bill, and assume that other editors are acting in good faith. Please stop reverting each other's edits and continue to talk on the talk page. Where you have a dispute, propose edits on the talk page, find a consensus, and only then edit the article. It's not like you guys are arguing about whether to include some crazy holocaust deniers opinion that Hitler was really a swell guy. As I understand it, you're arguing about which article should carry basic information about a city. This is really not something to get upset over. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It gets annoying when your cleaning and some one dirties it up again. Thats whats happening here. House1090 (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you again for some common sense wikipediatoperfection. I to believe this to be a bit extreme. House believe me i do not mean to leave small mistakes. I thank you for cleaning up. But i believe he is in consensus with the basic information being added to the page. Also...i am aware of how the OC, SB, RV counties urban areas do not relate to the LA MSA, but i thought it was clear that it referred to the CSA. My apologies if that was not clear. SoCal L.A. (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the images i thought you would understand but you made that picture really large. Notice i did not revert how you changed it. Also i feel that that basin image should remain large as it is easier to view without having to click on the image to go to the file destination. I simply meant that the page shouldn't be clustered with to many images. Again sorry for not being clear. SoCal L.A. (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So what exactly is this article about: LA and Orange Counties only, the LA-LB-SA MSA, the LA-LB-Riv CSA, the Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura MSA, or the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA?  Some of these are mutually exclusive, yet all are mentioned.  A clear definition should be made of what this article is about.  That definition will determine the content.  And, what value does this article have over the already existing Greater Los Angeles Area?  And finally, this is only Wikipedia.  I wouldn't get too upset about it. Alanraywiki (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If its not clear to Alanraywiki then it might not be clear to other readers. I created it with the intention of being about the LA Metro which is LA-Long Bch.-Sta. Ana. If its not about that themwhy do we have this one when we have the GLAA article? This is what I have been fighting this whole time. House1090 (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well to me this article is obviously about the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Most of the sections are about that. The only "disputed" part (which contains information about the Los Angeles metro just as the GLA has info on the LA Metro) is the small basic CSA part that states the other adjacent metropolitan areas and the list of urban regions. In my opinion as small and basic information *about* the GLA in regard to the Los Angeles metropolitan area it shouldn't be removed. Perhaps my take on the matter makes sense now? SoCal L.A. (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps we could of removed it in the first place and had avoided this problem. Its obiviously not clear about what this article is about, it should be removed. Like I have said before, only because other articles have does not make it right. If other articles are being vandalizes, should this one too? Well its about a metropolitan area like the one being vandalized. No. House1090 (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Another thing, why did he revert me here ? Each picture should remain constant. We should not have that one huge, it looked fine the other way, but I am not going to fight nor revert an image size. I just wanted to let the other wikipedians know whats going on. House1090 (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Technically you reverted me first so you are to blame. Every time you change something i did, you revert it and i revert you back and then you point fingers at me. Hardly just. I have also explained the image size multiple times. Did it not look fine before? Yes it did since you didn't bother to change it when i first added it. Saying you're not going to fight or revert defeats the purpose of saying it since it implies you trying to recreate a better image of yourself since you are saying "i am not to blame". Yes this article is about the Los Angeles metropolitan area and since it is part of the GLAA i added the very basic information. Also my work cannot be categorized as vandalism since it refers to and directly correlates to the article subject and is not biased citing references and if you are assuming that that NY and Chicago articles are being vandalized they aren't. They added that information without any dispute to the logical. Also as many others have stated. This is just wikipedia, not worth getting into huge fights over. An articles should be able to have basic information about a topic directly related to it. SoCal L.A. (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I used vandaizing as an example. Now I care about wikipedia and I want it to be taken seriously, not as a place where you can add what ever you want. And I am not only blaming I blame my self for starting the article not ready to be put up for the public to see. I would repeat would not acuse of vandalizing, I am glad to have you here to create and expand articles. I would want you to take a look at the Inalnd Empire article, if looks fine with out stating the urban areas around it. Now as for telling me to go edit Inland Empire articles on the edit summary, that is not nice nor civi. I dont tell you go back and edit El Centro, San Diego articles. I dont tell you either to leave go make portals. House1090 (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to be offensive but just meant that you could better utilize your time fixing up the IE articles. Just as i have been making Imperial and SD articles/categories, as well as portals for wiki. I am indeed taking it seriously add i have only added information that correlates and/or directly relates to the Los Angeles metropolitan area (not whatever i want). I took a look at the IE page and it looks fine but as i stated earlier, articles should be able to have basic information about a topic directly related to it. This is also a metropolitan area known by billions around the world and should that basic info so they can get a taste of the GLAA. Which will perhaps spark their interest to take a look at the article. Therefore i have added this basic information and now i am expanding greatly on the MSA's economy, transportation, and communication. As well as repairing broken links. SoCal L.A. (talk) 03:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see you two are trying to work to a compromise here on the urban areas, including outside opinions, but it is probably best if both of you stop editing/reverting for at least a day or two until you can get some sort of consensus on this. You've both reverted each other twice over the alignment of the long beach image, and the size of the greater LA map and panorama (See diffs below). I'd also add that the Panorama and WP:MOSIMAGES will probably help you make an informed decision on this. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 1)  User:SoCal L.A. increases size of panorama and greater LA map
 * 2)  User:House1090 moves Long Beach image to left
 * 3)  User:SoCal L.A. reverts(1st) User:House1090's image change back to right align
 * 4)  User:House1090 reverts(1st) User:SoCal L.A. back to left align
 * 5)  User:House1090 reduces image size of panorama and greater LA map (1st of this revert)
 * 6)  User:House1090 removes IE locations from Urban areas of the region, citing User talk:Alanraywiki
 * 7)  User:SoCal L.A. reverts (2nd) the Long Beach image alignment back to right
 * 8)  User:House1090 removes Hemet from Urban area list
 * 9)  User:SoCal L.A. reverts (1st) image size of panorama/greater la map
 * 10),  User:SoCal L.A. reverts Hemet, other IE removal from Urban areas
 * 11)  User:House1090 reverts (2nd) to smaller panorama/greater la map
 * 12)  User:SoCal L.A. reverts (2nd) to larger panorama/greater la map

Continue: So why do we have GLA urban areas in the "urban areas of the region" section if half of those urban areas are not in this region. It is stated that the LA metro is in the GLA area, so why is it still here? Like Alanraywiki said if they are not a part of this region/metro they dont belong here, its all ready enough if we have a link to the Greater LA article. House1090 (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought this was clear. Urban areas of the region is a sub section of the Components of the metropolitan area and is directly below the CSA information. You are asking the same questions over and over again and i have given you multiple answers different times. This was part of the basic information. I feel no need to further explain myself as i have already done so multiple times. SoCal L.A. (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay I wanted to make sure I got it strait. House1090 (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Urban Areas RfC
See above or here. Basically, SoCal LA feels that this article should include the urban areas of the Greater Los Angeles Area (GLAA)because the LA Metro area is in the GLAA. Another user and I agree it should not be here, this article should focus aroud the LA metro rather than the GLAA, which wiki already has an article on it. I feel that this article should talk a little about the GLAA, but not to the point where we are adding its urban areas, if people want to know about the urban areas in the GLAA the would visit that article. What is going on here is that User SoCal LA recreated that article. The space were the GLAA urban areas are can be used to write the metropolitan divisions in the LA metro, which would be more suitable for the article. (Please, keep this space clean for the RfC comment). House1090 House1090 (talk)
 * As far as I can tell, User:SoCal L.A. would like this article to be about the LA-Long Beach-Riverside CSA, while User:House1090 would like this article to be about the LA-Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA. Is this correct? --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 06:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I would not like to include the Urban areas in the LA-Long Beach-Riverside CSA because they are already in that article and if people want to read/know about it they can click on the link in the "See Also" tag, while SoCal LA wants it here because it related to the LA Metro. House1090 (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just want to say that yes i do want this article to be about the Los Angeles MSA, which it is. I have added all the information regarding its relation to the CSA felt necessary and i am done adding. I was a while ago. Now i have added and updated the page multiple times adding codes, economy and other information. SoCal L.A. (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is about deleting the Urban areas which are in GLA not the LA metro, as stated above. House1090 (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

After merge: Split
Please comment on the following proposal: Talk:Greater_Los_Angeles_Area. The merge of this "metropolitan area" article with Greater Los Angeles Area would be followed by a split into a) the casual and various definitions, and b) the specific federal census grouping of five counties all the way to the Nevada border. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)