Talk:South Robertson, Los Angeles

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

South Robertson, Los Angeles → Pico-Robertson, Los Angeles – Pico-Robertson is the name used by Mapping L.A. of the Los Angeles Times at http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/neighborhood/pico-robertson and is already called by that name within the article. --Relisted. --  tariq abjotu  13:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC) GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Week oppose. Is there any strong evidence that "Pico-Robertson" has superseded "South Robertson" as, per WP:COMMONAME, the most common name used by most reliable sources? The LA Times is only one source; we cannot merely change the title based solely on one source (again, per WP:AT). The LA area has more news sources than the LA Times. What do other reliable sources in the LA area say? For example, doing a google search, I found a story from KABC-TV and one from KCET  using "South Robertson". There is also the South Robertson Neighborhood Council (not "Pico-Robertson" Council), this piece from last month from the LA Weekly, and so forth. The argument that Pico-Robertson "is already called by that name within the article" is irrelevant since the lead section should already be listing alternative names or official names. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Response. The South Robertson Neighborhoods [plural] Council includes more than Pico-Robertson. See here or here. The census data within the article refers only to a limited area known as Pico-Robertson and identified as such by probably the most Reliable Source in Los Angeles, one that studied L.A. community boundaries for more than a year before issuing its maps. We could have twp articles, one for each title, but then we should not have one title redirect to the other, as is now the case. And if that were done it would have to be made clear exactly what each of the two articles are covering. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fix content with Pico Robertson
I looked at the mapping LA reference to Pico-Robertson and the South Robertson's Neighborhood Council's map of their neighborhood. Reading both for consistency, Pico-Robertson is only the northern most part of the South Robertson council. So, perhaps what we should do is keep both articles; get rid of the redirect, and just make sure that pico-robertson receives only proportional representation in the South Robertson one and clarify: Pico-Robertson is a neighborhood in South Robertson.

The other issue is that maybe they shouldn't be read for consistency. Mapping LA defines the borders of pico robertson. However, it does not recognize a South Robertson instead including it as part of Mid-City.

Thoughts?

--Daniel E Romero (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a tricky problem that's not going to go away soon. Part of the problem is that it's hard to make a case that the neighborhood councils are either reliable or independent sources for even the existence of their areas as places.  They have unannounced interests, often closely tied to the real estate industry, and they divide the city up according to criteria that are in line with those interests.  Now, of course, that sounds paranoid, and I have no real proof, because the intersection between the interests of writers of reliable sources and those of Wikipedia are more or less disjoint here.  That's the other side of the tricky problem.  It's hard to make a case that the places the neighborhood councils are named for don't actually exist, because no one writes about the issue.


 * And I don't know what to do in this case, either. But I will say that there's no valid reason to treat the pronouncements of a neighborhood council as reliable for anything, whereas at least the LAT is disinterested, independent, and reliable.  I'd also note that there are no independent sources in this article for the existence of South Robertson as a neighborhood, and that probably there aren't any such sources anywhere.  On the other hand, it's easy to establish the existence of Pico-Robertson as a neighborhood through many high quality sources, and I will bet good money that none of them say it's the northern part of some notional area called "South Robertson."  If I could have my way we'd redirect this article to Pico-Robertson, or just delete it outright, but I've been through enough LA neighborhood AfDs to realize that neither of those things are going to happen.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not that tricky. Pico-Robertson is simply a part of the South Robertson Neighborhoods Council. Pico–Robertson has been around for years. It is commonly referred to as such in maps that pre-date the Mapping L.A. project, etc.


 * Neighborhood councils are fairly recent city enterprises. Some encompass multiple neighborhoods, such as the South Robertson Neighborhoods Council. Some took new names (e.g., "Mid-City West," which also encompasses several neighborhoods), which later caught on, to varying degrees. Others, especially if their boundaries were already in line with the traditional boundaries of a single neighborhood, use the name of their neighborhood (e.g., Westwood). Neighborhood councils have recognition from the city, but many contain multiple neighborhoods within them. For example, Greater Wilshire is just a region (not quite a neighborhood), but its council has the official boundaries of the neighborhoods within it. South Robertson is another such example. Pico–Robertson is simply a part of that area. --Precision123 (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)