Talk:Rodeo Drive

Notable People
We have looked over the notable people that you included on the page. We are curious as to why they should be included in any part of this page. There was no description and no connection to Rodeo Drive on their own Wikipedia page. If these people are to be included on the page, there should be a description of their relevance, rather than a simple tagline. We are trying to add people that are synonymous with Rodeo Drive and often associated with the street. Jbrubins (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a super-good question. There's not really a fixed standard for notable people to list in association with a street, although there's a well-accepted (but not mandatory) one for notable people to list in connection with cities, found here: WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline.  My feeling, and this is open to discussion, is that with a short street like this one, since it's feasible to include every notable person that's lived on the street or had some important relationship with the street (important defined by reliable sources), we can mimic that guideline.  This wouldn't be possible with longer streets though, and maybe it's not desirable here.  But Julia Roberts and Eddie Murphy are stretches; what's their relationship to the street?  The street wasn't mentioned in the sources given.  Anyway, yes, let's talk about how we should decide who goes on such a list or even whether such a list is desirable.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, one more thing. It's generally not important to an article about a person that they lived on a street in the way it may be important to an article about a street that a person lived on it, which is why I didn't add the fact that those people lived on Rodeo to their articles.  It's like how there are "George Washington slept here" historical markers all over the place, and it may be appropriate to mention those facts in the articles on the places, but it's not important to list them all in the article on George Washington.  Thus "synonymous with the street" is almost certainly too strong a standard.  Who's synonymous with a street?  Certainly not Julia Roberts and Eddie Murphy with this one.  Of course, this is subject to sourcing.  If you have sources that say "X is synonymous with Rodeo Drive" then by all means, add them.  Probably only Fred Hayman meets that standard, but he's mentioned in the body of the article so probably doesn't belong on the list.  Plus it's standard not to put people on these embedded lists until they already have an article.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Although we appreciate this addition, I haven't found its significance either. I was rather hoping that you would add to the suggestions you posted on the sections you deleted. I think that if we work on the skeleton together, we will make more progress with this page. I find it odd that since its creation almost 10 years ago, nothing has been able to be added. Let's give this page it's justice shall we? We have a project which is ending in 2 weeks, we would love to have something established. Anything after that date is all yours! If you would like to add to our sections along with the criticism, we would greatly appreciate it. You make valid points which we consider each and every time we make an edit. Your assistance with the creation would be welcomed.Wikilaina (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you have a comment on the issue that this section is about?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, my comment was that I haven't found the significance in the Notable people section. I noticed that you had added to the page, and was wondering why you didn't add onto the sections that were already formed. Your contributions are greatly appreciated, however I think we are thinking of this street in a completely different way. Many others have tried to add on the shops, which is why the street still exists in the first place, however its been almost a decade and the shops are still missing from the page. How is it that a reputable street such as 5th avenue has added their shops and only has a small history section, and Rodeo Dr. isn't allowed the same treatment?152.7.224.7 (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Huh. Is this the same conversation we're having below in the section on shopping? If so, my answer's there.  If not, I'm not really sure what you mean.  "Many others have tried to" do things isn't really an argument for doing things, you know.  In fact, if "many others" have failed, it might just be that you have an argument against your own conclusion.  Just look at the eternal problem of invading Moscow.  P.S. I don't know how interested in rhetoric you are, but you might note that passive-aggressiveness can signal consciousness of the weakness of one's position.  Just sayin'...&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Shopping section
First of all, if the street really is "synonymous with glitzy shopping" or whatever, why have a separate section for shopping? It's the main part of the history of the street. Second, the material that's left in the shopping center has excellent sourcing, mostly from WWD, that's only being used right now to prove the presence of the stores on the street. But the articles have much more detail about when the stores opened, what effect they had on the street, how their owners felt about the street in relation to the presence of their stores on it. Plus it's completely achronological. I think it should be integrated into the history section, which I'll be doing unless someone has a colorable objection based on something more than the terms of a class assignment.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * We didn't add the Shopping section because it's part of our class assignment, we added it because we thought it was a notable section for the page, as have past Wikipedia users who have tried to create a shopping section. We believe that the shopping section should be separated from the history section on the page. Although part of the history of Rodeo Drive comes from its stores, the stores should stand alone on the page because we see the stores as an important part of the Wikipedia page as a whole. The history should include the construction of different parts of Rodeo Drive —— like the construction of the buildings, Two Rodeo, the Rodeo Collection, etc. —— but it should not include the stores without a shopping section. We could include an "Economy" section, as the Fifth Avenue Wikipedia page contains, with "Shopping" as a subsection, but we believe it should remain separate from the history. Jbrubins (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for engaging on the talk page. I'm not really convinced by your arguments for a separate section on shopping.  The Fifth Avenue analogy is a good try at supporting your argument, and I commend you for the attempt.  The difference I see here is that Fifth Avenue is one of the single most important streets in the world and has about a zillion important aspects, so to include a discussion of the stores in the general history of that street would be to overemphasize them at the expense of the other aspects.  Rodeo Drive, on the other hand, is not an especially important street in the context of the entire world, it's more like a shopping mall and cultural icon.  It has pretty much no history apart from its economy.  So what are you going to put in the shopping section that would really be about something different than the history of the street?  Maybe you could give an example, because all the stuff you had in there before was really unconvincing as evidence that there ought to be a separate section.


 * I'm not ignoring your other arguments because I'm unable to answer them, I'm ignoring them because they're either (a) tautologies, like "Although part of the history of Rodeo Drive comes from its stores, the stores should stand alone on the page because we see the stores as an important part of the Wikipedia page as a whole." or (b) covert claims that you somehow have a bunch of editors who agree with you when you don't actually seem to, such as "as have past Wikipedia users who have tried to create a shopping section."&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Since you claim that Rodeo Drive is "more like a shopping mall," maybe you can use the Mall of America Wikipedia page as a reference. Although it starts with a history section —— like the Rodeo Drive page does —— it includes a "Mall Contents" section, which contains stores that are featured in the mall. This issue has taken a long time to be resolved, with issues starting in 2006 when there were a few stores that were listed on the page. Additionally, a user posted on this talk page in July of 2013 and they wanted to post a listing of the stores on Rodeo Drive, backing up our belief that other Wikipedia users have wanted to create a list of the stores on the page. Because we have constantly tried to resolve this issue with you, but to no avail, our only solution seems to be posting on the dispute resolution notice board. Hopefully, a nonbiased third opinion can help us resolve this issue. Jbrubins (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Since you claim that the Mall of America article is a model for this one, maybe you could try explaining why. Just repeating yourself is not engaging on the talk page.  As for DRN, I wish you the best of luck with that.  I think you'd be better off actually engaging on the talk page, but de gustibus non disputandum est, etc. etc.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You claimed that Rodeo Drive is more like a shopping mall, therefore, we referenced a famous mall's Wikipedia page to see what was included on it. If Rodeo Drive and the mall have the same level of importance, we should do Rodeo Drive justice by including a listing of stores in an appropriate section. We believe that because we have different views about this issue (and since we have engaged very much on the talk page), it would be better to call in another contributor so it is no longer a problem. Jbrubins (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Look, saying "article X has a list of stores so this article should have a list of stores" is not really going to be convincing. You should try to explain why you think this article should have a list of stores that's separate from the history section.  So far your best shot was the Fifth avenue thing because you made an actual attempt to argue for the importance of shopping to this street.  Then I disagreed with you, essentially by saying that shopping was so important to this street that it diminishes its importance to put it in a separate section.  You don't have to give up just because I disagreed with you.  You could argue with my argument.  That's what we do on talk pages.  Instead, you switch to some other argument about the Mall of America.  It really begins to seem as if you don't have an actual, articulable reason for wanting a separate "shopping" section.  If you do, why don't you state it and defend it instead of switching to a different argument every time I disagree?  That's really no way to have a conversation, you know.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey, just for kicks, and because you're a student, here's a quiz: What's the difference between this article and Sunset Boulevard, which includes a list of stuff that's on the street?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The argument switched because you decided that Rodeo Drive could be more accurately seen as a shopping mall. That's why if it could be seen as a shopping mall, it could still include a list of the stores in a separate section. As we stated before, we believe that the history section should only include the construction and changing of the buildings and ownership, rather than the stores too. While the description under the "International Fashion Mecca" section should remain the same, a shopping section should exist since Rodeo Drive is mostly famous for its "luxury-goods stores."

Are you trying to point out that the stores and landmarks that are included on Sunset Boulevard's article are only places that exist on that road? While the stores that exist on Rodeo Drive are located elsewhere (and most do not solely exist on Rodeo Drive), the list of stores is important to this Wikipedia page simply because the stores located on it are what the road is known for. What would Rodeo Drive be without its expensive stores? Sunset Boulevard is famous for places like Beverly Hills Hotel, Chateau Marmont, Spago, etc. (which are listed on its Wikipedia page), while Rodeo Drive is famous for places like Bijan, Louis Vuitton, Versace, Balley, Etro, Fendi, etc. (which all should be included on its Wikipedia page). Jbrubins (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * But if you had a reason for wanting to include a list of stores before I said it was like a shopping mall, what happened to the reason after I said it? Now, surely you don't mean that the history section should include only changing of buildings and ownership without mentioning the names of the owners, which are stores, right?  So there are going to be some stores in the history section regardless.  I guess now I feel like I don't understand what you're proposing.  Suppose there were a shopping section.  What would be included in it?  What would the format be?  Side note: Can you think about using indentation to thread the conversation?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming I just add the colon in front of my reply to thread it? We're still trying to pick up the techniques on Wikipedia, so there's a bit of uncertainty on how to do it. As stated before, parts of the history section —— like the "fashion mecca" part (which includes some of the store names) —— could still exist as part of the history section. Fred Hayman and his store Giorgio Beverly Hills should, of course, stay in the history section, while other important owners of stores should be included there too. The point is that there should be a shopping section that includes the current stores that are located on Rodeo Drive. Rather than being in a list form (as we attempted to do before), the stores could be in a paragraph form, separating the men's, women's, jewelry, and shoes stores so that the paragraphs wouldn't be too large. However, if something is especially notable about the store, it could be included in the history section.&mdash; Jbrubins (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * So you want to have a list, either in prose or in list form, of every store on the street? That's what you're proposing?  I'm just trying to get it straight.  And your proposed criterion for inclusion would be that the store is on Rodeo Drive but it's not important enough to discuss in the history section?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, a listing of the stores on Rodeo Drive, because the "luxury-goods stores" are what causes Rodeo Drive to be a notable street. I'm not sure what you're not understanding. As stated in the last response, if something makes the store especially notable, it's description should be included in the history section. However, all of the stores that are featured on the road should be included as well in a different section.&mdash; Jbrubins (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * But why don't wikipedia articles on shopping malls, which you're comparing the street to, have lists of every store in the mall in them? Like your Mall of America example.  They have a prose section with some small number of the hundreds of stores in the mall mentioned.  What's different about here that makes you want to list every single store on the street?  A convincing argument for including all of them should address the issues discussed here: WP:INDISCRIMINATE.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

A note to Assignment Students
Hi all, welcome to Wikipedia. I see that this article is a subject of a  student assignment and I feel its a great way to begin your journey into scholastic research and peer-review. I came across this article in a DRN and yes, I am quite impressed by your efforts. But, on a sober note I see that articles are to be reviewed on a Good Article criteria, and that is a tall order, even for experienced Wikipedia editors. So lets get started
 * 1) Good article criteria - Have you gone through the criteria for  Project U.S. Streets and  Project California? This should be your assessment standard.
 * 2) Undue Weight - Yes, I get it. Rodeo Drive is best known for its shopping experience, and yes, it has been called a Mecca for shopping, but as user  has pointed out, that makes the article tilted in one direction. To try and make this article more balanced, read on.
 * 3) Break it up - Now that we have addressed undue weight, lets try and make this article more balanced. Can we try and add sections to this article? How about adding a section for Cultural Significance, fiction, significance for the fashion industry, architecture on the street, notable buildings etc. ? I came across a lot of stuff related to this on Google Books. Why don't you try and explore these directions?

Here are some tips that I hope will be helpful


 * 1) List down everything that has been published about Rodeo Drive, including books, magazines etc.
 * 2) Sort the list into categories
 * 3) Drill down via Google Search, Google books, your own library etc. till you get content that can be attributed to reliable tertiary sources (WP:RELIABLE) and ensure that you present all sides to ensure neutrality (WP:NPOV).

This will cover 60-80% of the ground. The rest is your efforts. Keep typo to a minimum and ensure the article is readable and not confusing. That's it! Best of Luck--Wikishagnik (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, we really appreciate your constructive criticism. We have been looking for someone to give us some positive structure for this page. If you have any suggestions on how to add in the different sections without them being deleted, we would appreciate the help. We originally added in a Cultural section but everything we added was erased. We are thinking about adding in the Architecture section as you suggested. Are there any other sections you think would be notable to the page that we can start working on? What did you mean by adding in a "fiction" section. What did you mean exactly when you said this?Wikilaina (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)