Talk:San Fernando Valley/Archives/2012

Sucession
I added a little more in-depth treatment of secession since it is such an important part of the Valley political scene.

''pretty much the entire city of Los Angeles knows of the term "The Valley" and most of them call it that. No revert, but a rewording''

And who is this article written for?? What percentage of wikipedia visitors live in LA?? I knew Southern CAs were self-centered and egotistical, (I have lived in Southern CA 8 years now), but this is ridiculous.

I used to live in the San Fernando Valley for a while. Then I moved to a neigboring area in the mountains called Antelope Valley. One thing I noticed is that people in Antelope Valley refer to the San Fernando Valley as 'The Valley' (or sometimes as 'Down Below') but refer to their own area by the name of the town (i.e. 'Santa Clarita', 'Valencia', or 'Canyon Country')--Jack Schitt 20:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not called the Valley, just that this is true anywhere (happens up north with San Joaquin valley, e.g.) and so why point this out, unless this "Valley" is somehow more important than all others??)

I think it's useful to include that people in LA call the Valley 'the Valley.' In some valleys the residents refer to their home as "the Valley" (e.g. San Joaqin) and in other valleys they refer to it by the town name (e.g. Valencia), so it is not as if it would be immediately obvious to the reader that the Valley is called 'the Valley'. And this way, if the reader should ever visit the LA area, he or she would be using the proper vernacular and would not suffer the indignity of seeming touristy (as when, in San Francisco, visitors unwittingly call it 'Frisco' and attract derisive glances from locals). Moreover, with this knowledge, the reader will understand what people in shows and movies (which are set in LA) are referring to when they mention the Valley (for example, in The OC, the characters watch a show called 'The Valley', a joke I think people not from LA miss). Thedavidmo 19:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To put in my two bits: After following this discussion for a while, I concur with Thedavidmo's analysis. Well argued. --Coolcaesar 00:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

History
It'd be nice if there is history in this article


 * See History of Los Angeles, California. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:53, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

HA! That LA history article is a joke cribbed from Mike Davis' books. I began the history section here for San Fernando Valley-only historical interests. Hope others build on it. Infernalfox


 * Any help you'd like to give there would be appreciated. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:50, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Photo caption
I took the photo in this article in 2002 when I was passing through the S.F. Valley. Unfortunately, I don't know which boulevard I took it on, but I don't think it could be Van Nuys Blvd. as someone captioned it. Reason: in the photo (click on it to make it bigger if you can't see it) the cross street is shown as Sylmar Ave. If you look at a map such as https://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/Locations/VanNuysEast.htm#3, you can see that Van Nuys Blvd. and Sylmar are parallel and one block apart. Therefore Sylmar doesn't cross Van Nuys Blvd. Does anyone know where the photo was taken? Could I have been on Victory Blvd.? It was taken while I was crossing the Valley from north-to-south generally, although I may have been temporarily going east-west. Edit: Does Sylmar somehow take a sharp turn at some point and intersect with Van Nuys Blvd.? Whoever captioned it thusly (and it's been months), seemed to know what he/she was talking about, so I'm willing to be shown I'm wrong with evidence. Thanks. Moncrief 21:53, May 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a sign pointing to a police station. I'm guessing that it is the one located at 6240 Sylmar Avenue, Van Nuys. If that's the case, then the road may be Victory Boulevard, and the photo faces east. -Willmcw 22:02, May 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Great sleuthing! I think that must be Victory Blvd. looking east. I don't think I would have gone west at all.  A friend and I got off the 405 at some point in the north central Valley and kind of made our way southeast through the SFV to have a look at it before we went over the hills to our destination in West Hollywood. (I also know that I was intrigued by the idea of Victory Blvd, wondering if it was named after WW2 or what, so I'm sure I made my friend, the driver, hang a right on it).  I think it's Victory!  Do you want to change it?  We have proof as far as I'm concerned.  Moncrief 22:13, May 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * It's almost a moot point. There are a hundred similar intersections in the SFV. However, I'll go ahead and make the change. Thanks for taking the photo and for noticing the caption error. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:36, May 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * More: This is fun! It's definitely Victory Blvd. How do I know?  Look at this page: http://www.amazon.com/gp/yp/B0004UBB7W/002-9381564-2275243 .  It's from a new site called A9.com (associated with Amazon) that has taken consecutive photographs along major roads (not even all of them that major) all over the country.  The page above takes you to a point on Victory not far from the corner with Sylmar.  Scroll east through the photos to just past the corner with Sylmar and you'll start to recognize things, from street level!  (The Noble Electronics store, more....).  It takes a certain kind of eye for detail to appreciate this sleuthing, but I thought you might enjoy, Willmcw.  Am changing the caption now.  Moncrief 22:39, May 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Neat site. Some familiar locations in their photos. Thanks for the sleuthing. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:40, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Climate
What's our source for this? I see that our article on Palmdale, California says that a low temperature of 6°F was recorded there. -Willmcw 05:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The West Valley community of Canoga Park has set not only the highest recorded temperature in Los Angeles County of 116° F in 1985 but also the coldest recorded temperature at 22° F in 1989.


 * Oops, that should actually read as Los Angeles Basin and not county. I'm fixing the temps too.  I got the figures from this awesome website giving an overview of the LA climate.

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/lox/Assets/final_la_climate_text.pdf

Infernalfox


 * The San Fernando Valley isn't inside the LA Basin, which is south of the Valley. Maybe the author meant "inside LA city limits". -Willmcw 07:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You're probably right, but man, it's hard to argue with what scientists put down. Maybe they are working on a more expansive definition of the basin?  For example, Colliers Seeley International defines "Greater Los Angeles Basin" as the heavily urbanized areas of the county excluding Antelope Valley and parts of San Gabriel Valley.


 * http://www.colliers.com/Content/Repositories/Base/Markets/LosAngeles/English/Market_Report/PDFs/INDLAB05Q2_050816.pdf


 * To the anonymous pothead: One, go cold turkey. Two, scientists argue all the time; that's the point of the scientific method.  Three, Canoga Park is in the western San Fernando Valley, which is usually treated as a different area from the Los Angeles basin.  The basin is that broad flat area between the mountains and Long Beach, while the S.F. Valley is the valley to the northwest of Hollywood.  Four, what a private real estate company like Colliers says has little to do with the definition used by a public government agency like NOAA.  I hope this makes everything clear.  --Coolcaesar 12:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Coolcaesar, yours must be the most asinine comment ever left in these pages. People want to contribute to the article and your personal attacks are brattish, especially coming from a law school student.  Let me tell you a couple of things


 * Yes, scientists argue, but are you a scientist? What are your qualifications to be arguing with meteorologists and geographers?  I would take their word over yours anytime.


 * I pointed out a valid point (yes, I am the "pothead")directed by the research done by the NOAA, that there could be a more expansive definition of the Los Angeles Basin being used in the article. I brought up an example of how others apply the label "Los Angeles Basin" beyond the commonly-held definition.


 * Please, show some respect when you're talking to people.

Infernalfox 20:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Sunland, Tujunga, Shadow Hills not in the San Fernando Valley
It's a common mistake to lump these three communities in the SFV because they have 818 phone numbers and are part of LA city, but they are decidedly not in the SFV. They're in the Crescenta Valley. 207.69.137.24 21:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What are the dimentions of the valley?
Length, width, square miles, etc?74.129.39.177 03:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how you measure it. If you measure length (west-east) as from Hidden Hills to Burbank, then it's about 20 miles long, and if you measure width (north-south) from Universal City to Sylmar, then it's about 12 miles wide. The problem is that it's not a perfect rectangle, though, and everyone has a slightly different conception of where the Valley starts and ends, especially at the eastern end where Burbank hits Glendale. --Coolcaesar 03:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, though the article says Glendale is in the SF Valley, and I don't know anyone in LA who would agree. Glendale is considered the beginning of the Verdugo Hills area, and not part of the valley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.66.35 (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

History
The history section really needs some work. The valley held the largest wheat farm in the country before the aqueduct. - PKM (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Agoura Hills
Wouldn't Agoura Hills also be considered part of the San Fernando Valley. Why is it not listed in the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielboros100 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agoura Hills is actually on the eastern edge of the Conejo Valley. - PKM (talk) 01:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Climate
I misread the title of Climate of the Los Angeles Basin, probably because I got there from Los Angeles, and interpreted it as referring to the City of Los Angeles, instead of to the Basin. It didn't have any Valley data, so I transcribed a bunch of Canoga Park data into it. Then I realized my mistake, and backed it out. I would put it here, except that I don't know enough about climate to write any reasonable prose to go with it.

Anyhow, if somebody does want to write a climate section, you can recover ready-to-use Canoga Park data, complete with reference, from here.

Jordan Brown (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Parks references
The referencing in the Parks section seems excessive - links in the text, plus references with the same links. I think one or the other, and maybe both, should go away. (I mean, there's over 20 references there. Are they really contributing information?)  I just can't quite decide what to do. Certainly the parks that have Wikipedia articles should get wikilinks. Beyond that, links to the lamountains pages don't seem wrong, but it seems inconsistent to have some wikilinks and some links to lamountains. It seems like a good compromise might be to have one reference per area, consisting of a link to the search results for that area. That is: wikilinks for those that have articles, plain unlinked text for the rest, references that lead to the search results. Thoughts? Jordan Brown (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Locally Known as the Valley (?)
The San Fernando Valley gave birth to the entire concept of "valley girls" and is referenced in countless media pieces as "The Valley". Is it not more appropriate to leave out the "locally" bit? Why is that there? To distinguish from Silicon Valley? Because Silicon Valley is almost always known as "Silicon Valley". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.4 (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Of these countless media pieces, are those from outside SoCal also countless? I don't think I ever heard anyone call it "The Valley" after I moved away in 1985 (unless the SoCal context was already established). —Tamfang (talk) 05:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Block numbers subsection
Does this detailed listing have to be in here? I don't think it's going to make sense to anyone who's not intimately familiar with the Los Angeles block numbering system. There either needs to be some explanation or the section ought to be removed. I can't think of any way to explain it that wouldn't be giving way undue weight to the block numbering system, so I'm in favor of removing it. Thoughts?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Does any other city article have such a chart? Useful for some purposes, sure, but so's a bus timetable. —Tamfang (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how to check. I haven't seen one.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There're these: Arlington_County,_Virginia,_street-naming_system, Loudoun_County,_Virginia, Denver has an article about it: Street system of Denver, there's something mildly related here: Nevada,_Iowa. These are from the first few pages of this search.  It seems that this is the most detailed and least explanatory of any of them.  I'll wait a little while, see if anyone objects, and then, if not, take the whole thing out.  There's probably room here for Street system of Los Angeles, which could explain it enough to make it useful, but I'm not up for writing it right now.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Only major earthquake under a major city in modern times?
Can this really be true? It seems quite unbelievable. At least it needs a citation: It was the only major earthquake to originate and strike directly under a large city in modern times. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm less amazed. The land area of cities (even including small ones) is a small fraction of the world, and an earthquake need not be within that area to ruin a city's day. —Tamfang (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's plausible, but where in the world did the statement come from? It ought to be sourceable.  I'm not looking to take it out, I'd just like to see some proof.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sources seem to say that the Kobe earthquake was directly under the city, like this one: . Others say it was "12 miles from downtown," which is probably closer than Northridge is to downtown Los Angeles.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Great Hanshin earthquake says The focus of the earthquake was located 16 km beneath its epicenter, on the northern end of Awaji Island, 20 km away from the city of Kobe. —Tamfang (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems that Kobe is part of the Keihanshin major metropolitan area, and so is the Northern half of Awaji Island: File:Keihanshin_MMA.png and google maps link for comparison.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * A metropolitan area generally includes some unincorporated territories. This map excludes the island from "Urban Employment Areas". —Tamfang (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Reasonable. Maybe someone will turn up with a source or an explanation.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this step off the train tracks is a reasonable solution.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Agoura Hills, California
A couple of IP editors are reverting each other over whether Agoura Hills is in the valley. Meanwhile we have this in the lead (after I rewrote the sentence): "Angelenos also consider Agoura Hills to be in "The Valley."  This was added by the first IP here who evidently thinks Agoura Hills is in the valley.  Without a source, and given that it's controversial (second IP undoes it) and given that the Agoura Hills article says specifically that it's not in the Valley, I'm going to roll it back pending discussion here.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC) _________________________________________________________________________________

Although through the expansion of populated areas, what was and is, as perceived by some, to be the valley, has changed somewhat we need to remember that the valley had geographic boundaries. Agoura Hills is not in the valley. The San Fernando Valley Economic Research Center has a Zip Code level data which uses the geographical boundaries for the San Fernando Valley. Also by Communities from Zip Codes http://www.csun.edu/sfverc/zipdata.htm

Imveracious (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

________________________________________

Good enough for me. It never even occurred to me that it was in the valley. However, thanks to your good work we have a source to back that up. They seem to have chilled out about it anyway, but this was we can have the source on record in case it flares up again.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)