Talk:Toluca Lake, Los Angeles

Toluca Lake Boundaried
It should be noted that the Toluca Lake boundaries were never extended. West Toluca Lake, Toluca Terrence, and Toluca woods are neighborhoods that changed their names to disassociate with North Hollywood back in the 90's. They are part of the greater Toluca Lake council, but they don't live in Toluca Lake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BCF1:89B0:B1CF:D48E:90A8:D3BF (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Famous residents?
I know this article is still basically a stub, but if you are going to add "Famous residents," I think it is essential that you add some descriptive information for at least the people who have no articles themselves. Who are Evelyn Matchel and Mary Jane Reck-Khoshnegah? They do not come up on the first page of a Google search, so it's hard to know if someone just added themselves (it was an IP address contribution), or perhaps they are former movie stars and I am too young and stupid to have heard of them? TAnthony 18:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Lake
Anyone have some inside information of the lake itself? What it original and later expanded, is it open to the public at all and any kind of fishing and boating permitted? College Watch (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ann Blyth can be entered at well to residents of Lake Toluca 03/15/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.230.45 (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Name Change ? Stop until Consensus.
Toluca Lake, Los Angeles OR Toluca Lake, Los Angeles, California.
 * A precedet setting decision for one of the world's largest city's deserves wider discussion and input.
 * There is a definite lack of advance 'discussion width', which left me unaware of changes (considered or already done such as here) even though very active with L.A. Districts' articles. Personally I do not find using the word 'notorious' and L.A. used together by some 'change advocates' in other discussions positive or a npov backup. I'm neutral on the decision itself, but not on the process to date though.


 * More transparency before further changes, with notification and 'auto-forwarding' of 'old 3 names' titles (in both article links and new searches) could avoid difficult startles. The Reseda, Los Angeles, California (OR Reseda, Los Angeles ?? eg: the 'crap shoot' problem for now...) has discussion on talk page of neighborhood vs. district vs. census-designated place (CDP). If the change is inevitable perhaps doing so in district name alphabetical order would take out random 'crap shoot' searching now (or explaining another system being used).


 * Please stop further districts' changes until this is resolved so we all know how to find an article. Thank you- Look2See1  t a l k →  22:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion to drop "California" from this article's title is found at Talk:Los_Angeles. As for the issue about inadequate notification, I cannot help you with that. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Famous Residents
One of the things Toluca Lake is known for is its enclave of famous residents since its beginning. I suggest that rather than delete the entire section, that it include only those who have merited their own links as being notable. WikiBob47 (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Noq,Perhaps you don't know who the people are in the Toluca Lake article. Toluca Lake is known primarily because of the famous people who have lived there since its beginning and who live there now. It's a very unique area of celebrity homes in the middle of an otherwise fairly banal area surrounded by movie studios (Universal, Warner Bros, Disney, Dreamworks). This is where much of old Hollywood and famous people like Bob Hope landed, stayed and developed this unique area and where new Hollywood's A-list actors, directors, composers and producers fight to get into. References for many of these celebs so long ago are difficult, but everyone who has a reference and is a Wiki notable should be included. Those without would need to earn a spot. But almost every name there is a true Hollywood veteran with tremendous notability. This article has included the names for a very long time. I'm going to post this on the discussion page so hopefully you'll allow me to put back a portion of the article that is so tied to the reason for the notability of the town it seems odd to remove it. WikiBob47 (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I am a resident of Toluca Lake and a longtime contributor to this article, and I have to admit that a long list of people who live in TL or have in the past is indeed a bit trivial. The text of the article mentions some notables with a little more detail, but if all there is to say about a person's relationship to TL is that they live there, it's a blip. Add it to that person's article, and readers interested in that trivia can look at "What Links Here." There are many, many neighborhoods in LA and New York and other cities where notable people are clustered, this does not necessarily make TL unique.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 23:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As TAnthony stated, the list is trivial and seems to be filler material. If it is full of famous people how do you choose which to include? Let the chamber of commerce decide? The more famous people live there the less notable it is that a particular famous person lives or lived there. noq (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Such a list is not appropriate for an article of this type. If these people are indeed from this district, then the proper way to record this info is via the new category Category:People from Toluca Lake, Los Angeles. You can find numerous examples of how this has been properly accomplished at Category:People by Los Angeles, California district or neighborhood — Satori Son 16:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It might have been faster just to have gone ahead and pasted the list into the new category, although a portion of Toluca Lake falls in Los Angeles and a portion falls in Burbank.  WikiBob47 (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
" Toluca Lake is an affluent, heavily white, domestically stable, o-aged, low-density community." I can't believe that someone would put this as a discription of the neighborhood. Please keep your ignorance and racism to yourself.
 * Please sign your comments by striking the tilde key (~) four times. Thank you. Also kindly WP:Assume good faith and and conform to Civility. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2013

I'm using a smart phone. I also took still images of both Toluca lake and Tarzana intros. I will be taking this to the local media for discussion. This divisiveness in not acceptable and isn't fair to non whites who reside in the neighborhoods. This will be brought up in the local community meetings.


 * I don't see it being a huge deal to lead with a community's demographics, my issue is that the statement is unsourced. If the community is really 71% white then there is no racism, but if we're pointing this out I would expect some breakdown of other ethnicities because the reader will naturally wonder about that.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 17:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, after further thought (and checking out some random town articles), trotting out all the demographics in the first sentence is a little clunky and doesn't appear to be the standard. Generally lead sections/paragraphs touch on every section of an article but all this does is put undue weight on that bit. The info is already in the appropriate section so I don't think changing/removing from the lead is a big deal.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 18:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The lede has been expanded here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * George, you know what you are doing is wrong and divisive. Its not the standard in any neighbor article and shouldn't be in the introduction. Yes, affluent should be permitted but not the fact that its 7!% white. Population statistics should never be included in the introduction. You are setting up a racial tone that violates Wikipedia policy.Rob3gd (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the policy? GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * George, I explained clearly the reason for my revision just as the previous user did. Our explanations are quite clear, yet, you continue to revert the edits without good cause. I edited out the section and you reverted it back without good cause because I clearly gave you an explanation, but you chose to revert it back, citing a non- explanation which isn't true because I put in my explanation last night. That is a violation of Wikipedia's civility policy. You are also in violation of the Indecent suggestions clause of the Civility policy by constructing a paragraph that suggest white superiority results in "desirable" conditions.Rob3gd (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe you are new to Wikipedia and have made changes only to certain articles concerning neighborhoods in the south San Fernando Valley. There is a lot to learn about Wikipedia, but I am always glad to hear from newcomers. Rest assured that the paragraph as it was rewritten after your complaint fulfills Wikipedia's policies: It has a WP:Reliable source and it has a WP:Neutral point of view. As a starter, I suggest you read Encyclopedic and Edit warring. In the meantime, I am asking other editors to weigh in, using Requests for comment rather than Third opinion, because we have already heard from a third editor, User:TAnthony. Also, could you explain "non- explanation which isn't true because I put in my explanation last night"? I honestly don't understand it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

- The data comes from the U.S. census, and a WP:Reliable source has indicated it is important enough to highlight, viz:
 * Comment: Please explain to me how this content is encyclopedic and why its inclusion is merited in the article?  James ( T •  C ) • 5:17pm • 06:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still thinking about it, but I do suggest people read WP:LEAD and WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/ethnicity/white/neighborhood/list/

http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/income/median/neighborhood/list/#toluca-lake

http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/single-parents/neighborhood/list/#toluca-lake

http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/age/median/neighborhood/list/#toluca-lake

http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/household-size/neighborhood/list/#toluca-lake

The Reliable Source also states:

•	The percentage of white people is high for the county.

• $73,111 median household income (2008 dollars), high for the city of Los Angeles

•	There are 164 families headed by single parents. The rate is 9.7%,low for the city of Los Angelesand low for the county

•	The median age is 37, old for the city of Los Angeles and old for the county

•	Average household size of 1.9people, low for the city of Los Angeles and low for the county GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The statistics are in no way the problem, inserting the statistics in the introductory portion of the article isn't standard and also sets a negative tone. The statistics should be kept only in the population portion of the article. Stating that The neighborhood is affluent is not a problem in the intro, stating that its "white, older-aged, low density, well education, domestically stabled" in the intro is. 166.216.162.95 (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why being white and well educated, etc., "sets a negative tone." They are simply facts. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

On behalf of all others who come here re: RfC, GeorgeLouis is talking out-of date capitalist claptrap. If partnership is to mean anything at all it must mean an equal partnership of unions, government and industry. In that order. Signing post by User:You Can Act Like A Man, made 08:10, 10 July 2013.


 * I would say "affluent" and "low-density" are essential descriptive characteristics of the neighborhood and therefore acceptable for the introduction, but that data about particulars of residents' race, age, and domestic stability are either incidental or transient and therefore should occur later in the demographics section. EllenCT (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I was referred here by RFC bot. Can someone clarify what, specifically, we are asking to comment on? If the answer to that question is: "should the demographics section include a description of the US Census data on race and ethnicity" then my answer would be 'yes'. Rex (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Response: Should the following be used as the second paragraph of the lead section of the article?

"According to an analysis of the 2000 census data by the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles section of Toluca Lake is an affluent, 71.9% white, domestically stable, older-aged, low-density neighborhood of the city.[1]"


 * It was deleted here by User: Rob3gd. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No move this information to the demographics section of the article per WikiProject Cities/US Guideline imho. WikiBob's description of the nieghborhood (above us in the talk page) is pretty good as well. Rex (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: : Not quite sure what you mean. I didn't see any description of the neighborhood by WikiBob, and the information is already in the Demographics section. The discussion is about having it also in the Lead section, per WP:Lede, to describe what the reader will see later in details. Maybe you could elucidate. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Even after being provided with the guidelines for cities on Wiki, George still ignores the rules and decides to put the demographics in the lead section of the article to set a tone for the reader before he/she even reads it. This is unethical as an editor and should be disciplined some how. Its against the guidelines set up and against the virtual consensus of other editors who weighed in.Rob3gd (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. No sense in getting personal. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Looking at a brief sample of WP articles on US cities, the demographics in the lead to seem to be limited to population.  Harlem (actually a neighborhood, not a city) is one exception, since it is notable for its African American population.  Unless Toluca Lake is notable (which is not the same as statistically unusual) for a particular demographic, I'd say leave demographics other than population out.  (Rob3gd is new to Wikipedia, and I hope s/he will learn to discuss issues, even controversial ones, with minimum drama and without resorting to personal attacks.)--Wikimedes (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Possible solution: It seems like the biggest objection is to putting the racial composition into the lede. What if we just took it out? I will do so and see if this is achieves consensus. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment As GeorgeLouis says at the staart, you need to assume good faith. Calling editors ignorant and racist is hardly going to make them want to agree with what you say, even if it is right. Would there be any problem with moving the 71% white population to under the header 'Population'? Or, if it is still an issue, perhaps, as GeorgeLewis suggested, simply removing it may be better. Mat  ty  .  007  12:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. This RfC is formatted and constructed very poorly.  Please fix this.  In your "brief, neutral statement", it should actually have a brief, neutral statement.  It seems vaguely like we're supposed to comment on demographics information in the lead; if so, I remain neutral.  I do not see a great cause for either their inclusion or exclusion; however, it does not seem notable.  Scarsdale, New York is 84% white and has a median income of $180K, but neither fact is noted in the lead.  If Scarsdale doesn't comment on it, then I'm not quite sure why this article does.  At the same time, I really don't care enough to actually vote to remove it.  This is a really stupid debate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Could somebody clarify what's needed here? I think I agree with GeorgeLouis but it's difficult to be sure when an RfC is so unclear. bobrayner (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Toluca Lake, Los Angeles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070419113812/http://laokay.com:80/BobsBigBoy.htm to http://www.laokay.com/BobsBigBoy.htm#TolucaLake

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyrighted material
A great deal of copyrighted stuff was recently inserted, and I simply removed it instead of challenging it. I hope the editor can rework it in his or her own words, in a more neutral, encyclopedic style, and restore it. The actual words can be used, briefly, if they are surrounded by quotation marks and credited. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Toluca Ranch
Is there some connection between the ranch and the city of Toluca in Mexico? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.33.162 (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Residents
Lists of notable residents are a bad practice as they are not only trivial, but potentially huge and neverending. In particular, this article once had an immense list of people who have lived in TL, which would be even longer now. Wikipedia is not a directory; this information is better addressed with Category:People from Toluca Lake, Los Angeles, as appropriate. The current info listing a handful more recent residents like Melissa McCarthy and Viola Davis should probably be removed as trivial, but I've kept it in a less conspicuous single sentence more in keeping with the prose about early residents. In general, keeping information like this in the article should be predicated on the cited sources actually establishing the person's residence in the town as notable by discussing it in some way, not just noting where they live arbitrarily.— TAnthonyTalk 14:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)