| Revision as of 19:56, 28 April 2010 editJkfp2004 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,496 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:02, 29 April 2010 edit undoLook2See1 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users227,698 edits →Warner Center, Los Angeles, CaliforniaNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| *'''Oppose''' - I agree. Unless there is a disambiguation problem, "neighhborhood, Los Angeles" is sufficient. ] (]) 07:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC) | *'''Oppose''' - I agree. Unless there is a disambiguation problem, "neighhborhood, Los Angeles" is sufficient. ] (]) 07:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Oppose''' No reason to move--] (]) 19:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC) | * '''Oppose''' No reason to move--] (]) 19:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::::'''Neutral''': While understanding a larger view now than when posting the 'movereq' above; I agree with ] that a precedet setting decision for one of the world's largest city's deserves wider discussion and input. My posting the 'movereq' was due to lack of 'discussion width', leaving me unaware of changes (considered and done) even though very active with L.A. Districts' articles. Personally I do not find using the word 'notorious' and L.A. together by some 'change advocates' positive or a npov backup. | |||
| ::::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 ] (OR ] ?? eg: the 'crap shoot' problem for now...) has discussion on talk page of neighborhood vs. district vs. ] (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). Thank you-] ] 22:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:02, 29 April 2010
 | California: Los Angeles Start‑class | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
-Why is Warner City called an "Edge City"? Doesn't that connote that its an incorporated city? As far as I'm aware its a neighborhood in the SF Valley, not an independent city, but I could be wrong. -Alligator69 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.206.60 (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Warner Center, Los Angeles, California
 | It has been proposed in this section that Warner Center, Los Angeles be renamed and moved to Warner Center, Los Angeles, California. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move |
Warner Center, Los Angeles → Warner Center, Los Angeles, California
Hi Purplebackpack89; Please consider: To align with predominant city's district/town nomenclature of 3 names; & for Spanish placename/word multiple use clarity. Also please consider one nomenclature system for all the neighborhoods, districts, and 'towns' within L.A. city limits would be easier with all editors knowing one template. As is now will have to search each one to enter link correctly in an article edit. If majority wants no Calif. it's certainly fine then, but a mixed system is hard for many. Would you consider stopping redoing until clarified please? Thanks---Look2See1 (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Strong oppose/Request speedy closure User has offered no reasoning for move. The name of the city is Los Angeles, not Los Angeles, California; therefore the name of the article should be Chatsworth, Los Angeles, not Chatsworth, Los Angeles, California. Many neighborhoods in other cities, in and out of the United States, do not contain state names, including quite a few neighborhoods in Los Angeles now. In a few days, almost all the articles will be NEIGHBORHOOD, Los Angeles; per some movereqs of my own that you're more than welcome to contribute to. The reason you're having trouble finding them is that you blanked the redirects. In addition, please refrain from directing comments at me on articlespace, confine them to my talk page Purplebackpack89 22:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree. Unless there is a disambiguation problem, "neighhborhood, Los Angeles" is sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose No reason to move--Jkfp2004 (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Neutral: While understanding a larger view now than when posting the 'movereq' above; I agree with User:Will Beback that a precedet setting decision for one of the world's largest city's deserves wider discussion and input. My posting the 'movereq' was due to lack of 'discussion width', leaving me unaware of changes (considered and done) even though very active with L.A. Districts' articles. Personally I do not find using the word 'notorious' and L.A. together by some 'change advocates' positive or a npov backup.
- 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). Thank you-Look2See1 t a l k → 22:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)