Talk:Hollywood, Los Angeles/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sign

Question about the Hollywood sign: The sign is copyrighted. Even if it's a photo taken by a private individual, is its use here okay? -- Zoe

The sign is copyrighted? Really? Wow. --KQ
Yes, the copyright owners (which I think is the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce) are the only ones allow to legally use it on T-shirts, etc., etc., -- Zoe
KQ: In Hollywood (home of MPAA and RIAA), Everything is copyrighted. :) -- Chris Mahan
What about persay... The Coca-Cola logo? That's copyrighted and yet we stick a picture up. I believe a photo of the sign is fine.

People can claim copyright to anything they want. That doesn't mean their claim holds any water. It might also be possible that the Hollywood CoC has a valid trademark claim to commercial uses of the sign. That has nothing to do with copyright, and while that too is a pretty dubious claim, it's a bit more reasonable. At any rate, if some resident takes his camera down there and snaps a photo for us and uploads it here, we can use it without any legal impediments at all; anything anyone tells you to the contary is utter nonsense. --LDC

Thanks, Lee, just wanted to be sure we were okay here. -- Zoe
Here's a intresting discussion of this very issue.

history

From the page history:

(cur) (last) . . 07:50 6 Jul 2003 . . Oliver Pereira (No - years that are linked should link to the year pages. I'm sure we have a policy on this.)

(cur) (last) . . 07:42 6 Jul 2003 . . Patrick (when mentioning a year for literatue a link to the year in literature is more meaningful than to the year in general; for film similar; therefore restored)

(cur) (last) . . 04:31 6 Jul 2003 . . Oliver Pereira (fix opening paragraph; remove hidden links to "year in literature" pages; other minor changes)

This looks like a miniature edit war. Rather than changing the links again, I'd like you to consider the following:

(1) If we aimed at uniformity (either way) here, we'd have to change thousands of links.

(2) It is rather clumsy to have something like Book Title (1888) (see also 1888 in literature).

(3) Those links directly to the literature/film pages are not "hidden". That's what we have the "|" for.

(4) It does not matter. Users can click on from the literature page to the general year page and vice versa.

(5) I don't think we have a policy on this.

Personally, I'd agree with Patrick here. --KF 09:51 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. I wouldn't call it a war; my last edit left the "year in literature" links in (in an unhidden form), even though I don't think they were necessary. That was a compromise. But to address your points...

  1. Yes. But this isn't much of an argument. Hundreds (thousands?) of edits are made to the Wikipedia every day anyway, and millions more will be made over the next few years, so a few thousand more are neither here nor there. :) Uniformity of links is good - it makes it easier to navigate the encyclopaedia, and avoids frustrating the users by sending them where they are not expecting to go.
  2. I agree. I personally wouldn't include links to "year in literature" pages except in pages about literature, and I only left them in this page to avoid an edit war. Now that I think about it further, it seems obvious to me that the links shouldn't be there at all. The "year in literature" pages will show how the books Laughing Gas and What Makes Sammy Run? fit into the context of the literature of that time. But this article isn't about literature. It's about a place in California. So the context here is geography, not literature. How those two books fit into the history of literature is utterly irrelevant to an article about a place.
  3. I don't follow you here. We have the pipe ("|") to hide the title of the article, replacing it with some alternative text, yes? This is often useful, for example in linking to disambiguated pages like Blah (movie). We rarely want the parenthetical bit to appear in the article, so we hide it, using the pipe. The "year in literature" pages are not disambiguated year pages. 1936 in literature is not a different usage of the term "1936"; it's a page about a particular aspect of that year. Adding a reference to a year by writing [[1936 in literature|1936]] would be like adding a reference to George W. Bush in an article on gardening by writing [[George W. Bush's views on gardening|George W. Bush]]. No-one would be expecting to get to an article on George W. Bush's views on gardening by clicking on his name. It's exactly the same situation here.
  4. When you say it doesn't matter, all you mean is that you personally aren't bothered by it. But other people are. Therefore it matters. I find it frustrating to click on a link expecting to go to one place, and ending up at another.
  5. Actually, we do! This has come up before, in connection with the "year in music" pages. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) said, until an edit I made to it yesterday,
Do not use piped links to "years in music" (e.g. [[1983 in music|1983]]). See Wikipedia:Wikiproject Music standards.
I believe that it only referred to the "years in music" pages because they were the first "year in..." pages to arise. But I see no reason to think they might be a special case, which is why I added the phrase "or analogous pages" to the rule yesterday. If you want to change the policy, I expect the best place to bring it up would be at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). -- Oliver P. 04:22 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I've written a short note there (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)) inviting others to join in. Personally, I don't want to change our policy because, as I have already pointed out, in this particular case I don't consider it frustrating at all to be redirected to the literature/music pages. Anyway, you should probably be discussing this with Patrick rather than me, but thanks nevertheless for your answer. --KF 05:02 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. But I think you mean that you do want a change in the policy, since as I pointed out above, the piped "year in literature" links are contrary to our current policy! As for my message, well, it's an open letter, and intended for anyone who wants to read it, not just you. I've notifed Patrick about the discussion on his talk page. -- Oliver P. 07:31 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hm. Why is this thread here? Well anyway I just wanted to say that Oliver is 100% right and I still very strongly feel that piped "year in topic" pages are evil. They are only daughter articles and should therefore rarely be linked directly -- but the year articles should all have prominent links to them and there is nothing wrong with the (see [year in topic]) syntax for the minority of times when a direct link is desireable. --mav

Given that there are year-in-x articles, e.g. 2003 in film, I think that, e.g., all films released in 2003 and mentioned in an article (and in particular an article on such a film) should link to it.
This facilitates adding the film to the list if it is not there yet, and checking for consistency.
The link should not suggest that more info on the film can be found by following it. To avoid the piped link [[2003 in film|2003]], in Gerry (film) I used "Gerry is a 2003 film" with that redirecting to 2003 in film. Similarly we could have 2003 play, 2003 book, etc. - Patrick 21:34 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I really like that idea! --mav


It's fascinating how easily you can get caught up in a debate and be labelled the villain :) even if all you have said is that you don't care. Am I considered the opponent here who is <shudder>100% wrong</shudder> or what? Also, who decides? Has there been a final word on this? --KF 08:06 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
No reason to be defensive. I was just supporting Oliver and the current convention. --mav
Okay, I'll be offensive from now on. Now seriously, I don't like the ad hominem approach. And as I really don't mind. I'll always link to the year pages in future. But I'd still be interested in other people's opinions. --KF 08:37 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No, no. Nobody is attacking you. Sorry if that's how it appeared. We were just attacking the piped "year in topic" pages, which isn't the same thing at all. :) It would be ad hominem if we said, "You're wrong, because you're an idiot!" or something like that, but no-one's saying that! Oh, and as for who decides, I think the answer is that it is decided by "consensus", although this probably doesn't always work very well... And there's never a final word; we can always change our minds later. There are only a small number of things that are set in stone, like being a wiki, being an encyclopaedia, and having a "neutral point of view" policy. Pretty much everything else can be changed if there is a consensus to do so... -- Oliver P. 08:58 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Herb Albert" should be "Herb Alpert"

The link on the Hollywood page to "Herb Albert" spells that individual's last name incorrectly: it is actually Alpert. See http://www.tijuanabrass.com/ for a discography. I corrected it on the page, but that correction now breaks the link to the as-yet contentless "Herb Albert" page and produces a 404 error. Unfortunately, I lack the skills or the permission or both to correct that problem, but I hope someone will follow up. Cheers, Paul

What about a map?

Anyone else think it would be good to have a map of L.A. or So. Cal. showing in red where the Hollywood district is? -R. S. Shaw 21:28, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

That would be great. Funnyhat 05:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Good idea, better if distance from LA included —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppasah (talk • contribs) 10:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Jackson Browne song?

I was under the impression that the song was about a boulevard in New York, not about Hollywood Boulevard. It seems to make more sense that way but I guess it could be either. Can anyone confirm? I don't think those lyrics should be here.--csloat 19:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Haivng these lyrics in this section makes more sense than having the Burt Bacharach lyrics, and makes more sense then one of those lists - "___ in popular culture." As for the song - there used to be a little coffee shop called the "Golden Cup" on Hollywood. According to a book I once read about runaways in Hollywood, it was a hangout for hustlers working the neighboring Selma Blvd. The book specifically quoted the song as applying to Hollywood Blvd, but I don't recall if the author asked Browne about it. Which boulevard in NY did you think it applied to? Was there a Golden Cup there too? -Willmcw 21:30, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
I don't go to NY much but I remember someone telling me this years ago. Same "Dirty Boulevard" Lou Reed sang about; I have no idea which it is. I don't know the Golden Cup but presumably it was in Hollywood years before I got here. --csloat 21:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The book was published in the early 70s, if I recall correctly, with an introduction from some congressman from Ohio who was interested in juvenile delinquency. I can't find it now. I do recall the Golden Cup, which looked benign in the daylight. It was probably closed by the 80s, certainly by the 90s. -Willmcw 22:05, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hollywood - not a sovereign city

Wouldn't this article be more rightly named 'Hollywood, Los Angeles, California', as it is a district and not a city unto itself? If someone with rename priviliges would like to correct this, I would highly encourage it.

I agree. That is the standard naming convention. -Willmcw 07:31, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I do not believe that the claim that district, city, state is a standard naming convention is accurate. At best, I believe it is an undocumented and informal convention imposed on Wiki by a handful of contributors without any discussion. If I'm wrong, please correct me and point to the documentation of this convention (prior to the Hollywood rename) and discussion of convention prior to that. Just because Hollywood is not a city does not mean it should not be listed as Hollywood (my preference) or Hollywood, California. The name of every Wiki article should reflect common usage as much as possible, period. Yes, the convention for city names is city, state, but that's because that is common usage for cities! But where does it say that place, state necessarily implies that place is an incorporated city, so that place, state can only be used for actual cities? What about all the unincorporated areas of every state? --Serge 23:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Hollywood, Florida has just as much right to the name as this Hollywood. As for the use of "district, city, state", how else should we handle Brentwood, California and Brentwood, Los Angeles, California? What is the problem with ahndling places in this manner? -Willmcw 23:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Hollywood (in L.A.) is known for being Hollywood. On the other hand, the lesser notoriety and greater chance of confusion among the Brentwoods argues for Brentwood to be a disambiguation page, which it is. The overriding standard (as opposed to a contrived convention) here is the Wikipedia naming convention for common names. I don't have a problem with the city, state and neighborhood, city, state conventions as defaults, but in the case of well-known places, be they cities, neighborhoods or whatever, I think the question from the Common Name page should guide us:
"When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?"
With respect to New York City, Chicago, Paris, San Francisco, Tokyo, Manhattan, Hollywood, etc., places whose notoriety is well known, they should get the respective page title. I mean Hollywood, Los Angeles, California? Talk about an uncommon name! Nobody refers to it like that. And if that page redirects to Hollywood, what's the problem? --Serge 23:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I concur, for the reasons raised above and which I am also discussing separately on the main naming conventions talk page. --Coolcaesar 00:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you concur with Willmcw or with me? --Serge 23:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

May I also add into evidence these, Category:Oklahoma City neighborhoods, Category:Cincinnati neighborhoods, as indications of why standards are needed. -Willmcw 00:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Name Change Please!?

I Agree, This Articles Title Should Be Hollywood, Los Angeles, California. Just Like All the Other Districts/Neighborhoods in Los Angeles.--Redspork02 17:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Hollywood is a part of Los Angeles, thus the name should conform with most city neighborhood articles on wiki. --Moreau36 11:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Vote on city naming convention!

The basis for the name of this page is an alleged convention. There is a vote on whether the [[City, State]] and [[Neighborhood, City, State]] conventions should apply in a case where there is no ambiguity issue, such as in Hollywood. You would be voting essentially on whether the name of this page and all other unambiguous neighborhoods should remain something like Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, or be changed to the common name of the place, like Hollywood (but only if the name is unambiguous). Vote here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) --Serge 06:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

(vote whether to move this page from Hollywood, Los Angeles, California back to Hollywood, which is currently a redirect to this page)

I think everyone will agree that this fits the naming conventions policy of being flexible in cases where it's an indisputable and instantly recognizable name. The current name sounds contrived and fake. Jibbajabba 19:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting

  • Support. Jibbajabba 19:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Serge 19:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this and other attempts to upset a long-discussed and generally-agreed upon convention. -Willmcw 01:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --Coolcaesar 06:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is by far the most common use of the name Hollywood. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mourn 17:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose (at least as specifically proposed). I've long thot that Hollywood, the city cum neighborhood (whether at Hollywood, Los Angeles, California or just Hollywood, California I don't really care, other than since the person that moved it from the latter to the former a few months ago didn't fix any of the incoming links the linkage would be better at the latter), and the 'tinseltown' meaning, should be two separate articles; I would support a move(s) that breaks it in two, with Hollywood becoming the tinseltown-meaning article instead of a redir, leaving the city/neighborhood content at one of the other two titles. Waterguy 20:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm with waterguy. I think we need Hollywood, Los Angeles, California for the neighborhood, and maybe just Hollywood or Hollywood (concept) or Hollywood (American film industry) for the remainder. Please see Category:Los Angeles neighborhoods for the other examples of neighborhoods in the area, and the many subcats of Category:Neighborhoods of the United States for different naming conventions used by different city editors. jengod 23:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • P.S. This article was at Hollywood, California for a very long time. I think a move back there might make everyone happy? The rationale from a neighborhoods point of view could be similar to that for Universal City, California: the area in question is in more than one jurisdiction. With Universal City it's both city and county, Hollywood could be viewed as "Greater Hollywood," and extend to the West Hollywood controlled Sunset Strip, etc. jengod 23:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think either Hollywood, Los Angeles or Hollywood, California would be preferable. The primary meaning of "Hollywood", IMO, is not the physical locale, but a metonymn for the U.S. film industry. older≠wiser 21:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Given that the Hollywood link is a redirect to this article, about the place, rather than to Cinema of the United States, or even to the Hollywood (disambiguation) page, coupled with a general lack of controversy about any of that, indicates that the consensus seems to be that Hollywood should refer to the place. The only issue is whether it should be the primary page, or a redirect to the primary page. --Serge 23:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

  • As I stated on the request page, I think it's pretty clear this is a case of an unambiguous, unique name that does not need a contrivance such as the one it has now. Jibbajabba 19:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The ongoing vote and debate regarding U.S. city names indicates there is no consensus on even the [[City, State]] naming convention for cities, much less any consensus for the completely non-standard [[Neighborhood, City, State]] format that results in ridiculous looking contrived article titles like Hollywood, Los Angeles, California. --Serge 19:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, the fact that the Hollywood page points directly to this page and is not a disambiguation page indicates that there are no significant ambiguity conflicts. The minor ones are dealt with at the top of this page per Wiki policy. --Serge 19:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Even though everyone knows (or can guess) where it is, we still title the article "Los Angeles County, California" instead of "Los Angeles County". Since there is a redirect pointing here from Hollywood there does not seem to be a reason to change it. It is perfectly logical and reasonable to name districts, cities, and counties in a consistent manner. "Hollywood" refers to a couple of places and several concepts, and the day may come when we turn Hollywood into a disambiguation page. -Willmcw 07:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I can understand the appeal of naming in a "consistent manner" when dealing with printed material, but when everthing is accessed through links and a computer index, I don't see the point. Can you please explain it? You make the assertion as if the value of consistent naming is self-evident. I just don't see the value of "consistent naming" for anything in Wikipedia. That is the essence of the Wiki principle to use common names for naming (as opposed to following a contrived convention). On the other hand, the disadvantage of consistent naming of main pages according to a contrived format have been spelled out ad nauseum. And should the time ever come to turn "Hollywood" into an ambiguation page, then that would be the time to rename this page to Hollywood (district), or whatever. But, until then (which may very well be never), having a perfectly good Hollywood page wasted on being a redirect just makes no sense to me. --Serge 08:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
There are many reasons for wanting consistency. One is that is more proffessional. An encyclopedia whould not have articles with titles that are all oover the map (if you will). Second, it makes it easier for other editors to know what name to link to. Third, it avoids page-by-page arguments over title names. Fourth, it handles all places within a city evenly. Fifth, articles only appear in category listings under their real name, not a redirect. -Willmcw 17:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The "more professional" point is so paper thinking and last millennium. At best it's an aesthetic point, and I strongly disagree that Hollywood, Los Angeles, California looks professional. To the contrary, it looks like something nonprofessionals would do who don't comprehend the value of the Wiki principle for using common names over the value of adhering to a contrived format. The other points apply equally to all Wiki pages and are not a significant problem there. The only reason U.S. cities have gotten this special treatment is because so many of them got named by a robot. And now some of you want to override the human names with the robot names. How professional. --Serge 22:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I might support the City, State/City, Province convention if it applied to every country instead of the US and Canada alone. Right now it just makes us look like oddballs. Mourn 18:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Australia, at least, follows the same convention as much as the US does; not all countries have the same number of levels of government so that it can't be applied universally; I don't think the overall convention should be changed per such a narrowly titled/defined/explained discussion; and I would be really reluctant to make such a substantial change 800,000+ articles/4+ years into the project. Waterguy 20:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The [City, State] convention for U.S. places is well-entrenched. I don't think there are many cities which don't follow it. -Willmcw 21:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The [City, State] convention is "well-entrenched" because they were created automatically by a robot, not a thinking and rational human being. And since it's thinking and rational human beings who are reading these pages, I suggest we name and rename the pages with them in mind, rather than robots. --Serge 22:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
No, that convention has been the result of many discussion like this. Dicussions which don't do much to move the projec forward. As for professionalism, you don't seem to recognize that there are still a variety of naming styles in use for neighborhoods. Having inconsistent naming for no good reason is unprofessional. -Willmcw 21:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
What you don't seem to recognize is that imposing consistent naming for no good reason is also unprofessional. The good reason to have inconsistent naming is to abide by Wikipedia's primary naming principle: use the common name. Do I need to explain all the good reasons that support that principle for every Wiki article except the few oddball city and neighborhood names that unprofessionally follow the contrived convention even when that's not the common name and there is no conflict issue? --Serge 04:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Some neighborhoods are called [Neighborhood], some are [Neighborhood (City)], some are [Neighborood, City], some are [Neighborhood, State]. I can't see any good reason for that variety, and I see severl very good reasons for making them consistent, as I've listed above. -Willmcw 06:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You have never addressed the fact that the contrived principle of consistency violates the Wiki use the common name guideline. You are looking at this from the editor's POV, rather than from the Wiki user's NPOV. The NPOV user looks at one article at a time. The value of consistency is zilch. For each article, you should imagine that it's the only article in the universe - then decide the most appropriate name for it. How other articles are named should be completely irrelevant. It is only when you look at a bunch of city and neighborhood articles at once does the inconsistency become relevant. But what user does that? --Serge 07:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that users care a whole lot what we call our articles as long as they can find them and the text is correct and complete. Neighborhoods are often referred to in other articles. Yes, consistency does help editors too. The disruption inherent in voting on every disputed disambiguation to decide which place gets the nod of a name without city or state would be tremendous, not to mention the effort of tracking these decisions. Wikipedia is not anarchy. There are other exceptions to the "common name" practice, such as the avoidance of titles in article names (no Judge Judy, Dr. Ruth, et al) even if those are the most common references. You've already put it to a vote —lets not keep wasting time on this matter. It's already been discussed to death many times before. Finally, there is a certain flexibility in most of the MOS guidelines. If certain places have unique characteristic naturally they can be handled differently. Regardless of what we end up calling La Jolla, Hollywood, or Tribeca, we should still seek to make most city neighborhoods follow a regular naming convention so that all of the Uptowns, Downtowns, Westsides, Oak Glens and Pine Hills won't be a mess (for readers or editors). -Willmcw 09:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no issue regarding obviously ambiguous names like "Uptowns, Downtowns, Westsides, Oak Glens and Pine Hills", of which there are many examples and none of which particularly stands out. Bringing up this red herring in our discussion indicates you are either being disingenuous, or you have not read my proposal and arguments very carefully; either way, that's not a very productive situation. We are in agreement that if you can't use the common name for a place, then you should follow the convention (this is exactly what my proposal clarifies).
The issue is about whether the main page for places with unambiguous common names (like La Jolla), or places whose common name is ambiguous, but one has exceptional notoriety and the other(s) do/does not (like Hollywood), should follow the convention.
With respect to that, if users don't "care a whole lot what we call our articles", how do you explain all the questions on these pages about why is this page named something so oddly? Why was this page renamed from its common name to something so goofy, when there is no ambiguation issue? On most of these pages you will find discussion and dispute on this issue between those expecting the common name to be the name of the article and those contending the name should be the standard for the sake of the standard.
As to your concerns about disruption, with respect to those pages that are at issue, there is going to be disruption either way (case in point). In fact, if the standards proponents did not try to impose their will, there would be no disruption at all. The point is, if there is disruption for any other reason, that means there is an ambiguity and the standard should be used to resolve it. In the case of Hollywood, and a disambiguation reference to a disambiguation page for all the much less common uses is perfectly reasonable. There was no disruption or disagreement at all until the standards police showed up.
Finally, most of your "reasons for consistent naming", if valid, would and should apply to many categories outside of U.S. city and neighborhood names. To start with, if you're right, then there should be a standard for city and neighborhood names worldwide. But why stop at standards for city and neighborhood names? Why not all place names? Why stop at place names? If standards are good for naming places, then why not for people? Why use the common name for a person, which could be amibiguous, when we could use the [[name, date of birth, place of birth]]. How about requiring the ISBN in all main articles of book titles? Maybe we should require the year of release in all movie titles? How about requiring the manufacturer name to be part of all product names? Hey, shouldn't the main article for any animal be the scientific name? All of your "reasons for consistent naming", such as they are, apply to most if not all of these categories, not to mention the countless others catalogued in Wikipedia. Thankfully, they have not been so affected. Of all these categories, why pick on U.S. city and neighborhoods in particular? The existing general guidelines that apply to all Wiki pages already manage all of the real problems. Please, leave them be (except, of course, where there is a real and significant ambiguity issue). --Serge 17:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Serge, your argument fails to deal with the issue of Westside. For example, I could make a strong argument that Los Angeles Westside should be at Westside because, like Hollywood, it is the Westside that has been heavily popularized in movies and music around the world (e.g., the single "Westside" by TQ, which was a major hit in 1998 even in its heavily censored form, go look up the lyrics on Google). Also, most of the top Google results returned for a search on "Westside" are Web sites for businesses in the L.A. Westside. But that would be highly offensive to Wikipedia users in Baltimore, Houston, and numerous other cities. On the one hand, I could "be bold," but on the other hand, I also want to be courteous.
Furthermore, your slippery slide argument is inherently flawed and unconvincing. Geographical names are inherently different from personal naming or the naming of objects, due to the much higher probability that any single token has been used as the sole name of a location. In contrast, most given names (at least in the English speaking world) are usually combined with surnames and middle names to make a combination that is at least locally unique if not globally. Furthermore, objects that share the same name can usually be distinguished on type and further by year of creation (for example, there is a book called the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe as well as several movies). But Hollywood (city) is no good when there are several such cities. --Coolcaesar 22:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Coolcaesar, thank you for taking the time to understand and respond to my argument. Your response clearly shows that you have done that. I admit that by my approach the "Westside issue" (meaning all similar situations too) is not necessarily resolved. That is, there may be some discussion about the most appropriate use of the names. Where we differ is how significant an issue that is. I don't think it is very significant at all. Wikipedians have worked out it such that Westside is a disambiguation page. Until the standards police showed up, Wikipedians working on Hollywood had worked it out that the world famous district of L.A. should get the name for its main page. Where's the problem? I think letting Wikipedians figure out the right answer one page at a time is the way to go. For all the stubs automatically created according to the convention... that's fine. But I don't think that any of them should be prevented from being renamed to the more common usage - as long as doing so does not raise any ambiguity issues - for the sake of maintaining "standards". Most importantly, the convention should not be used to rename a page already using the common name with ambiguity issues resolved (like Hollywood). In other words, I believe the standard/convention name should be used when the common name cannot, either because of ambiguity issues or because it is not known (usually by a robot).
As to the slippery slope issue... what's next, Paris has to be moved to Paris, France because of Paris, Texas? Why, by the way, is it not Paris, Texas, United States of America? You contend that "the problem" is inherent with geographical names, yet the proposed required convention only applies to U.S. (and Canada) cities and neighborhoods. How is it that all the other geographical places are not having any significant problems (beyond what any other Wiki article may have), yet U.S. cities and neighborhoods need this special help of a contrived convention? Here again we must agree to disagree as to the significance of the issue. I just don't see U.S. city and neighborhood names being so different from anything else that a special contrived naming convention for them is warranted (except to easily resolve ambiguity issues, but only when applicable).
--Serge 04:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Hollywood aye nothin but the american propaganda machine, they try to make the strongest race on earth, the english look like pussies, and they alter hitoric events in their movies in their favour.

Result

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't it renamed from Hollywood to the current name, Hollywood, Los Angeles, California without a vote, much less without achieving consensus? Why do we need to vote/achieve consensus to move it back? Shouldn't we move it back, and then have a vote to see if the name should be changed? --Serge 23:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Because for a very long time, practically no one had an issue with the move to the current name until you came along. That's why it's necessary to achieve consensus to move it back. --Coolcaesar 04:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't me that made the change request. No one even bothered to bring the change from Hollywood to the current ridiculous name to a vote. That's reason enough to revert it without any discussion whatsoever. --Serge 04:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. Requesting moves is a relatively recent development. This page had been moved long before such discussions were expected for potentially controversial moves. You can't apply current practices retroactively. older≠wiser 12:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A new proposal for global cities to use a single name is being voted on at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names). If passed it would override the decision here. -Will Beback 18:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Elucidation

It may be of one's interest that New York City was once New York, New York, but subsequently redirected due to popular demand of the former. Personally, this article should follow the same guidelines. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

We have already debated and voted on this issue several times in the past year and a half in several different areas on Wikipedia. The fact is that the vast majority of American editors, myself included, support the current neighborhood, city, state convention because it is the most logically coherent way of handling the enormous number of neighborhoods and cities that share the same name in the United States, and because Americans are accustomed to referring to their city and state on their mail and in formal writing. Since American editors form the majority of English Wikipedia editors, any new debates and polls will come to the same conclusion as the previous ones. There is no need to raise the issue again for at least another year or so, when perhaps the demographics of the user base will have shifted and it will be reasonable to do a new debate and poll to see what the current consensus is. --Coolcaesar 07:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not an American citizen, so I do believe that you are aware of what you're talking about. I will not make an attempt to argue, but do you know why the article mentioned above is titled "New York City" over the neighbourhood, city, state convention? —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps because New Yorkers wouldn't let the mild autistics pushing the stupid naming convention wreak havoc on their page. --Serge 00:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it's because New Yorkers are just weird and crazy, period, to put up with living in a near-bankrupt, ugly, run-down and decrepit city (it can't even afford to fix its electric distribution system, so people and pets keep getting electrocuted by manhole covers with live current running through them). All the intelligent people have fled or are fleeing to Los Angeles, which has better weather and better-looking people (I ran into a lot of New York refugees in law school). --Coolcaesar 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
That's something. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This article needs MASSIVE editing

It is an embarrassment! Just try reading it.

I just did. This should also have an NPOV notice on it. The sections about Hollywood and runaways is very biased...and was littered with pejoratives like "broken homes." Adolescents also run away from so-called "intact" homes with two parents.

Any citations for Hollywood, Los Angeles, California name?

Besides the current undocumented, unprofessional and unconventional so-called "convention" of naming U.S. city community article names in Wikipedia according to the rather bizarre triple-named [[Communityname, Cityname, Statename]] format, is there any reason for this article to be named Hollywood, Los Angeles, California? In particular, are there any citations of official or common usage references to Hollywood with this convoluted name? --Serge 01:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we can find as many citations as you like to show that Hollywood is a district of Los Angeles, California. -Will Beback 22:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Showing that Hollywood is a district of Los Angeles would not be a reference to the usage of the convoluted name of this article, Hollywood, Los Angeles, California. The name of the district is Hollywood, not Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, and it's misleading and unprofessional for this article title to use the latter rather than the former. As a Wikipedia editor, I think it's embarrassing and an insult to our efforts. And before anyone asks about ambiguity issues, Hollywood already redirects to this currently incorrectly-named page. The fact that Hollywood is a district/community/neighborhood/whatever of Los Angeles is a gist to be covered by the text, not the name, of this article. --Serge 22:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Serge; if anything, this should either be Hollywood or Hollywood, California. There is, of course, a Hollywood, Florida, so there should be a dab link at the top of a page named Hollywood, but the tripartite name is bogus.--csloat 23:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with both of you: Hollywood, CA would be misleading, as it would imply that Hollywood is an independent city or community of California, whereas, it is a district of Los Angeles. Further, Mail here is addressed as Los Angeles, CA not Hollywood,CA. Also, to simplify the name to Hollywood, would be to ignore the existence of Hollywood, Florida as being named Hollywood as well. Moreover, practically every neighborhood, community, or district of Los Angeles follows the Hollywood, Los Angeles, California format, thus if you change this article, in essence, it would require a change in all district or neighborhood changes of Los Angeles. It is clear that a convention is needed for this kind of community/district pages, and no matter what, it should never simplify a district of a city to simply a Hollywood, CA format, especially since this may yield much overlap problems. See Westwood, Los Angeles, California. --Daniel Romero Cruz 00:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
And I concur with Daniel. --Coolcaesar 01:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Daniel that the name of this article should not be Hollywood, CA, but for different reasons. The reason is because the name of the subject of this article is Hollywood, period, and, since Hollywood redirects here anyway, Hollywood alone should be the name of this article. Simple. Consistent. Done.
As to the ambiguity issue with Hollywood, Florida, the standard way to deal with a significantly lesser known subject with a shared name is to use the format, Name (disambiguity information), and also to to a put a redirection note in Italics at the top of the main page for readers who may be looking for the "other" Name. To be consistent with well established Wikipedia standards, policies and conventions (as opposed to the hokey and inconsistent ones currently imposed specifically on U.S. city and community articles), the article names would be Hollywood and Hollywood (Florida). Simple. Consistent. Done.
Citing the Westwood example is very revealing, Daniel. This is the type of relatively rare exception that is supposed to justify the imposing on Wikipedia readers of unconventional and original names for ALL U.S. city and community articles, even for the vast majority for which there are no ambiguity issues. These U.S. specific unconventional so-called "conventions" are inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia as well as the entire publishing world, and are in blatant violation of Wikipedia policies. It's a ridiculous argument. Surely, you're not serious? Westwood alone is the name of a disambiguation page. On that page are links to a dozen or more Westwoods. What's the problem? For the neighborhood in L.A., the logical/consistent name would be, Westwood (Los Angeles). For the small town in Shasta County, Westwood (Shasta County, California). Etc. I'm sure Wikipedia editors are capable of working this out. Simple. Consistent. Done.
Finally, of course this means changing the name of every U.S. city and community article name in Wikipedia (except New York City, which is the only one that is not in violation of Wikipedia policies right now, as far as I can tell). That's the price that has to be paid when poor choices are made. And this one was a doozy. The sooner you're ready to stop fighting the inevitable and to help us start fixing it, the better. Thanks. --Serge 15:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Serge, your "inevitability" rhetoric only alienates the majority of editors and signifies two things: (1) your position is weak and (2) you are disconnected from everyone else. Furthermore, the disambiguation form you suggest would be even controversial than the current form, since it would require typing yet another keystroke for a link. Also, it doesn't deal with the problem of communities of equal prominence (such as the notorious Portland problem). Are you seriously suggesting that we should have Portland (Maine) and Portland (Oregon)? You give me a citation for that. I have never seen anyone write the names of the Portlands that way. --Coolcaesar 17:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Serge that "Hollywood, Los Angeles, California" is a ridiculous title name. Aside from the fact that "Hollywood" refers not only to a place, but also a cultural entity (come on, "Hollywood" refers to the American showbusiness industry in general), the current title is awkward and unnecessary. Rather than point to examples like Westwood, Los Angeles, California, we should be comparing the gigantic Hollywood with articles like New York City or, even better, Manhattan. Consider for a second that EVERY borough of New York (Staten Island, Queens) does NOT need to add "New York, New York" at the end. Nobody is trying to slight Hollywood, Florida here. But let's be reasonable - and LOOK at precedents (like the New York boroughs). Bssc81 05:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
"Gigantic?" You have got to be kidding. Nearly all the studios have moved to Burbank or Century City or Culver City, and Hollywood is actually quite small and modest in comparison to other neighborhoods like Century City, Downtown, Westwood, or Mid-City. Indeed, MADtv last season had a joke about Hollywood's rather short skyline. Hollywood is simply not in the same category as the huge New York boroughs (some of which were technically separate cities prior to the unification in the 1890s). --Coolcaesar 06:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You missed my point - I was referring to the "gigantic" Hollywood entity. Hollywood is more than a section of Los Angeles. It is a cultural entity that includes, in colloquial English, the entire American film industry (it is generally used in the same context as Bollywood - as an adjective, for example). That many studios have physically moved out of what is geographically called "Hollywood, Los Angeles, California" is irrelevant. I have to ask this - what is the benefit of titling the article "Hollywood, Los Angeles, California"? Aside from the fact that 90%+ of links to the article are via the redirect "Hollywood" , the current title ultimately hurts the article by reducing what the general public perceives as Hollywood to a small place on a map. Bssc81 16:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Due to the recent turmoil on community pages, a large community straw poll is being conducted. Wikipedia:Communities strawpoll is now open for voting. Despite resolutions made on this page, many others are facing turmoil similar to what this page is, or once did face. In an effor to solve the issue, I invite all Wikipedians to vote there by September 18th on this page following the procedures and ballot instuctions explained there. Thank You. Ericsaindon2 06:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hollywood Disitrict??

someone created a page with the above misspelling that redirects here. Worse, the properly spelled page redirects to Portland Oregon. Anyone have any ideas on how to fix this? There is no point in keeping a misspelled page name.--csloat 01:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on what links to Hollywood District, that appear to be the name of a neighborhood in Portland. Perhaps it should redirect to the dismbiguation page instead. The misspelled version is courtesy of a sock of user:Ericsaindon2. -Will Beback 01:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
shouldn't the misspelled one be deleted?-csloat 04:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll go get it. On further study it looks like th Hollywood District is a common name for a Portland area, so we should probably leave that as it is, but perhaps add a {otheruses} template to the article in case folks are misdirected. Thanks for pointing this out. -Will Beback 05:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hollywoodland

They should have something in here about Hollywoodland, which is the original name for it. They seem to have missed this, and it is important in it's history.Cowloverdude 21:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Tinseltown name

I think that this article should mention that "Tinseltown" is a nickname for this city. Some history as to why, how, and when Hollywood, CA, USA got that nickname would be great, if it's relevant info... but at the least, mention that it has the nickname Tinseltown. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kwakkles (talk • contribs) 06:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC).


I agree. If one wants to find out something about the nickname 'Tinseltown' you get redirected to this page. However that nickname isn't even mentioned ONCE on this page. As a result no info whatsoever about the origin and meaning of this nickname can be readily found in the English Wiki. So either the redirect should be changed or the info should be added. Hadoriel 11:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

2002 Vote

There's a derogatory comment at the end of the section on Modern History and the succession vote of 2002. Can it be removed?

Taken care of. -Will Beback ·:· 02:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard Geib

  • Richard Geib, a schoolteacher in the Ojai Valley, recalled his experiences with Hollywood mentioning runaways and gang members as major presences in Hollywood [1]. [1]

Why are we mentioning the memoirs of a non-notable schoolteacher? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should investigate it further before correctly formatting the source link (since it was added well before). I went ahead and removed the statement. --Moreau36 21:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it and for deleting it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fuckin brill

THis is FuCkIn BrIll mate, i dun my sustainablity essay just by copying and pasting it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.85.172 (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


Hollywood District

  • Hollywood was incorporated as a municipality in 1903. Among the town ordinances was one prohibiting the sale of liquor except by pharmacists and one outlawing the driving of cattle through the streets in herds of more than two hundred. In 1904, a new trolley car track running from Los Angeles to Hollywood up Prospect Avenue was opened. The system was called "the Hollywood Boulevard." It cut travel time to and from Los Angeles drastically.
  • By 1910, because of an ongoing struggle to secure an adequate water supply, the townsmen voted for Hollywood to be annexed into the City of Los Angeles, as the water system of the growing city had opened the Los Angeles Aqueduct and was piping water down from the Owens River in the Owens Valley. Another reason for the vote was that Hollywood could have access to drainage through Los Angeles´ sewer system.
  • With annexation, the name of Prospect Avenue was changed to Hollywood Boulevard and all the street numbers in the new district changed. For example, 100 Prospect Avenue, at Vermont Avenue, became 6400 Hollywood Boulevard; and 100 Cahuenga Boulevard, at Hollywood Boulevard, changed to 1700 Cahuenga Boulevard.



I do, hereby, demand some reason, purpose, justification, logic, why this title should be assigned to some whatever in Oregon.

I can justify why it should not be:

  • It is not the oldest.
  • It is not the most well known.


[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 18:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Nickname

"Tinseltown" redirects to this article, but there's no mention of it in the article... AnonMoos (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Page name

Shouldn't this page be at Hollywood, Los Angeles? I think most readers would be aware that Los Angeles is in California - there's simply no need to add the state as well. Terraxos (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(By the way: yes, I am aware that there are other places named Los Angeles. But I find it difficult to believe any reader could mistakenly think Hollywood is located in Texas, Chile or Nicaragua.)Terraxos (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

History skips from 1915 to 1947??

A huge and very important part of the city's history is missing. Kwertii (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Move

I propose this page is moved Hollywood, Los Angeles, as per Los Angeles, California's recent move to Los Angeles. The current name is slightly cumbersome. Any opinions? --Joowwww (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the move due to the fact that if you wish to change one neighborhood/district's page, all others should be changed as well. --Moreau36 (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Move to Hollywood

The current name is more than slightly cumbersome; it is arguably incommodious. Further, there is no need to disambiguate the most common name used to refer to the subject of an article when it is the primary topic, which plain Hollywood is in this case, and there is no special guideline that calls for predisambiguating the names of communities. The support for the current convention of [[neighborhood/district, city, state]] is soft at best. Others should be changed as well, but you might as well start with one of the most famous ones, which surely Hollywood is. Per the policies and guidelines that apply here, WP:NC, WP:COMMONNAME (which says to use the most common name of the article topic) and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (which says to put the primary topic at a given amibiguous name, if it has a primary topic), Hollywood, Los Angeles, California should be moved to Hollywood (which currently redirects here). --Born2cycle (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

When people around the world use the term 'Hollywood' they are more commonly referring to the (American) movie industry than to the actual place. The term requires disambiguation. Why does it matter if the title is cumbersome, does anyone ever actually have to type an article title? No they most likely navigate to it by searching or by disambiguation. The title should be correct and unambiguous, not easy and open to misinterpretation. Mfield (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Mfield, whether Hollywood should be a dab page is a separate issue and has been discussed in the past. The consensus has been for years that the topic of this article - the district itself - is the primary use of the name, its use as a metonym for the industry is covered in the first paragraph, and thus Hollywood has been a redirect to this article, rather than a dab page. That shipped has sailed long ago.
The Hollywood, Los Angeles, California construction is not only awkward, but it also wrongly implies that that is a normal way to refer to this community. It is not. That's what's most wrong with it.
I do agree titles should be correct. And the correct title of this article is Hollywood, for that is the most common name of the topic. As to whether titles are supposed to be unambiguous, that is not correct. If titles were supposed to be unambiguous, then there would be no point in having the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE guideline. The whole point of WP:PRIMARYUSAGE is that if a given ambiguous name has multiple uses, but one of those uses is primary (see the guideline for what that entails), and that name is the most common name of that use, then that ambiguous name is the correct title of that article. Hollywood, Los Angeles, California is not correct. Hollywood is. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Serge is making trouble again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Causing trouble only for those who favor more precision in titles than is necessary. Even WP:PRECISION calls for more precision only "when necessary". More precision than Hollywood is not required here, as is made evident by the fact that Hollywood redirects to this article (just as more precision is not required for Los Angeles or Manhattan). Pointing out facts is causing trouble? That's your argument? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
This is part of a pattern applying WP:COMMONNAME over common sense, which suggests that similarly situated articles (in this case, neighborhoods of Los Angeles) should have similar names. I consider those activities disruptive. If you think the activities are helpful, support his move. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
"Similarly situated articles should have similar names" essentially means that if some of the articles within a given set are titled with name plus additional precision which is necessary for disambiguation, then all of the articles in that set should be named with the same additional precision, whether it's necessary for disambiguation or not. This interpretation contradicts WP naming policy and guidelines, and is the root cause of countless and seemingly endless debates about article naming all over WP. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. The question of which articles need to be disambiguated or otherwise qualified is the root cause of countless and seeming endless debates, most of which were started by Serge. A simple policy that all articles be qualified, in a group in which most need to be disambiguated, seems much more stable against disruption. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
So, then, do you agree with the eggheads (tongue in cheek, with all due respect) over at WP:NC (flora) who are arguing that since most plants don't have commmon names, all articles about plants should be titled by the taxon, and, so, for example, Joshua Tree should be at Yucca brevifolia, and Poison ivy should be at Toxicodendron radicans? See: Talk:Yucca_brevifolia. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you are misenterpreting that. 'Similarly situated articles' applies directly to the fact that Hollywood, Los Angeles, California should be titled in the same fashion as Silver Lake, Los Angeles, California, Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California etc. as they are about similar subjects/in the same category and not that if some then all possible disambiguations of Hollwood should be similarly titled. Mfield (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you are misinterpreting my interpretation. I understand that Arthur is arguing that Hollywood should be at Hollywood, Los Angeles, California simply because other L.A. districts, like Silver Lake, Los Angeles, California, are similarly dabbed. My argument is that Silver Lake should be dabbed because it is not the primary use of Silver Lake, and not because Hollywood is dabbed. Whether Hollywood is dabbed should have nothing do with whether the Silver Lake district (or any other WP topic) is dabbed, and vice versa. They are independent articles, just like all articles in Wikipedia, and should be treated accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


I agree. That's why this article is about the district and the metonym (see intro). Also, the articles about those other communities, when the name of the community redirects to the article (indicating the name does not conflict with other significant uses), should be moved too. But we have to start somewhere, and Hollywood is as good as any. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is a consistent standard for L.A. neighborhoods. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support a move, at the very least, to Hollywood, Los Angeles, since the "California" isn't necessary anymore. Same should be done with other articles. Although, WP:COMMONNAME is enough to justify the move to Hollywood, as pointed out above. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hollywood, Los Angeles is understandable, but I disagree with just "Hollywood" due to the fact that Hollywood, Florida has alsmost the same amount of importance as Hollywood in L.A. plus Hollywood, Florida is by far the largest city in the nation whereas Hollywood California is just a city district/neighborhood. --Moreau36 (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Jewish community

The influence of the jewish community is controversial, however there is an interesting Los Angeles Times article here that may be useful for information about Jewish-american cinema. [2] ADM (talk)

This article is about a neighborhood of Los Angeles. While it does have a significant Jewish population, that is not the topic of the newspaper article you've linked. The relevant article would be Cinema of the United States. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

How the hell come English film redirects here

First: this is an artical about a city not about the English film industry (no matter how many movies are made here). Second: Hollywood isn't in England so whilst some of the funding for English film comes from Hollywood it doesn't mean all English films have anything to do with Hollywood.

Hollywood might be a big film making centre but the entire film industry does not reside there. I'm willig to bet not even the half of the American film industry resides there. I could understand if English film redirected to an artical on Enlgish language film but redirecting to a city in the USA is just idiocy.

I totally agree with the sentiment. That redirect makes no sense at all. I'm not sure where the redirect should lead to, but it certainly isn't here. Sky83 (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Cinema of the UK would make the most sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.73.219 (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
moved Mfield (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Bold text

Bold text'

I WHANT TO KNOW WHAT THE STARS THAT MOVIESTARS WRITES THEIR NAMES ON AND PUT RHEM INTO THE MARK IN HOLLYWOOD. HELP ME!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.72.127 (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Economy

Whoa, whoa, whoa. The whole economy of Hollywood revolves around deviantart.com? And "World's largest art community?" You can only say that with about fifty disclaimers. I take issue with this, and I'm going straight to deviant art's people about it. Gimme a break.Youdontsmellbad (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be true that the website is based in Hollywood, but I doubt it has much revenue. There is a Hollywood Chamber of Commerce and it might have some statistics on genuinely important businesses and industries. Obviously, tourism is a major component and there are still many entertainment-related businesses in the district too. Even the Church of Scientology is a significant economic element, I'd imagine. Just listing one company of unknown size would give a distorted view of the economy of Hollywood.   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Areas Included in Hollywood

Population, area size, population density, and other stats deffer greatly depending on which areas are included in Hollywood. Can someone find the official boundaries as described by the CA Assembly Bill 588, mentioned in the intro. --Jkfp2004 (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The City of Los Angeles does indeed determine the boundaries for its communities/neighborhoods/districts. This article (Hollywood) is mistaken when it states this is not typically done. Visit the City of Los Angeles' web site -Planning Department, General Plan Update - for boundary information. Ms. Planner (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
From what I could gather at this link, the boundaries stated are just the boundaries used by the planning dept. for their general plan and don't necessarily represent the boundaries laid out by the state in AB588. Am I looking at this wrong, or were you looking at a different link? Thanks!--Jkfp2004 (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
AB 588 "Defines the community of Hollywood, for purposes of this bill, as the City of Los Angeles' Hollywood Community Plan Area established in 1974, and lists the area's 2000 United States Census tract numbers. Also defines the community of Hollywood by a lengthy geographical description based on freeways, roads, city boundaries, and the Los Angeles River."[3] It sounds complicated. Looking at the description in this version, it is complicated. But I can't find a map anywhere.   Will Beback  talk  07:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for the help. As of now, I'm going to leave the population and area figures as they are, until I can get some better info that I can understand. Hopefully once the 2010 census is done, we'll get some concrete up to date info. If anyone wants to take the time and map the district block-by-block based on the descriptions feel free (and good luck!) --Jkfp2004 (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The bill includes the specific census tract numbers, so if you're interested in tallying up the figures it'd be quite easy and precise, except for one partial tract. [Here's an amended version, check to see if it matches the final bill: [4] Here are the tracts:
188200, 189100, 189200, 189300, 189400, 189500, 189600, 189701, 189702, 189800, 189901, 189902, 190100, 190200, 190301, 190400, 190510, 190520, 190700, 190800, 190901, 190902, 191000, 191110, 191120, 191201, 191203, 191204, 191300, 191410, 191420, 191500, 191610, 191620, 191710, 191720, 191810, 191820, 191900, 192000, 192610 (partial), 194100, 194200, 194300, 194400, 195200, 195300.
I'm not sure what the best thing would be to do with the partial tract. But maybe calling one of the city council offices would help? There must be a map buried somewhere on the city website. Or they may already have the information you're looking for. That was the purpose of the bill, anyway.   Will Beback  talk  07:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hollywood,_Los_Angeles/Archive_1&oldid=1080941559"