Talk:Studio City, Los Angeles

Parking and traffic "problems".
I removed the following statement from the "Geography" section:
 * "Traffic and parking problems have recently worsened, and the construction of parking structures has not made a visible improvement."

Besides the fact that it has nothing to do with geography,it is incorrect.I live and work in Studio City (last 14 years)and I have NEVER encountered what would reasonably be considered a noteworthy traffic "problem". Parking along Ventura Blvd.can be a little tricky and one might even have to walk a bit but this is no different from many busy areas of that Blvd.Certainly not something worth mention in an encyclopedic context.76.166.245.241 (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Advertisements in the first section
It looks like someone inserted ads into the intro. These should just be deleted; they're not really important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.107.83 (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Go for it! Weedwhacker128 (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Notable Residents
I'd urge editors to visit WP:LISTPEOPLE before adding a name to Notable Residents. A reliable source is required, and the person must be notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Weedwhacker128 (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
It appears the population section of this article is out of date, as it uses 2000 census information when 2010 census information is available. Specific information regarding schools located within the city also seems extraneous for the purposes of this article. Wd1996 (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I reverted to original wording by removing unsourced extraneous school info that was added and could be found on the pages for these schools, if there are any. As for the census info, you are correct, but perhaps the Los Angeles Times should be asked to update its Mapping L.A. site. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Joseph Benti
User:Yosemite4 has been attempting to add information about Joseph Benti to this article, with sources that do not mention Studio City. Two editors have reverted the additions, but the user seems to be verging into WP:Edit war territory. The user should engage in a discussion here as to what should be done to add Mr. Benti to this page, if indeed the latter is connected to Studio City in some way. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

BeenAroundAWhile I have made edits and have submitted them to the TEAHOUSE. I also ask that editors go the TEAHOUSE where this conversation can be be in one place. Democracy dies in darkness. Why hide behind a screen name?

Here is my edit. Please read the sources. Los Angeles Magazine is a print source you have to research because it's not online. I do have a copy of the 1983 June issue with the article. Do you need Mr. Benti's addresses in Studio City. I answered the question you put forth and I have given you the publication, but it requires non-digital research.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosemite4 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Joseph Benti, CBS news journalist and anchorman


 * Whether or not Joseph Benti has connections with Studio City, he is not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and therefore should not be included in a list of "Notable people". In the context of Wikipedia, describing a person (or anything else) as "notable" means that Wikipedia has an article about them. It has no article on Joseph Benti. Maybe it should have; maybe or someone else will be able to create one. But, until they do, his name does not belong on the list. Maproom (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * After seeing this discussed at the Teahouse, I figure I'd comment about it. The long-standing consensus based upon WP:LSC is that the individual entries in lists such as this be Wikipedia notable; this probably would be more clear if the section heading was titled "Wikipedia notable people", but that's really what "Notable people" is intended to mean (at least on Wikipedia). Per WP:CSC, the most basic criteria for inclusion in such a list is that the individually in question already have a Wikipedia article written about them, particularly in cases like this for lists which already have more than a fair amount of entries. For lists of only a few entries or for which there are likely only to be a few entries, a red link might be acceptable as long as the individual a clearly Wikipedia notable and that it seems only a matter of time before someone does write an article about them per WP:REDYES, but whether to allow such red links often ultimately depends upon whether a consensus is established to do so on the article's talk page. People want to add names to lists for all sorts of reasons and these reasons are not automatically all bad, but efforts do have to be made to ensure doing so is simply not a case of WP:Namechecking. None of the other entries in this particular list are red links, i.e. all of the individuals have Wikipedia articles written about them. Now, whether they all belong in the list is a different question altogether since it's not clear what their relationship is to Studio City, but they at least seem to satisfy the most basic criterion for inclusion; so, adding even one red link (even if the person is Wikipedia notable) seems inappropriate here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of the above, although I personally seldom OK a red link in lists like this unless I am pretty certain that it's only a matter of time until an article gets written. Thanks for posting. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)