This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I realized that the article doesn't have any list of shopping places in the county. Perhaps a list of malls and shopping centers and the suburbs they're located in should be added to the "Sites of Interest" section. AManSac 00:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a BAD idea. Some novice tried to create "List of shopping mall" articles for every state in the Union and articles on every shopping mall in the country as well. The last time I checked, nearly all of those lists have been deleted through the Articles for deletion process because the vast majority of shopping malls are non-notable, and Wikipedia is not a random indiscriminate collection of information. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Coolcaesar 20:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose We just discussed this above. There's no good reason for this move. Give it a rest, already. ·:· Will Beback·:· 04:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the discussion above established there is no argument based on Wikipedia policy, guidelines and conventions to not move this article. If to be consistent with naming policy, guidelines and conventions -- which is the basis for this move request -- is not a good reason to rename an article, what is? --Born2cycle (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. As requester. In addition to complying with stated polices and guidelines identified in the request, so the title of this article does not incorrectly imply that Los Angeles County needs disambiguation because there are other uses of that name. There aren't other uses, so the title should not be disambiguated. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- IRP☎ 21:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem? To be clear, is your position that inconsistency with naming conventions is not a problem that needs to be solved, are you saying that you don't believe the current name is inconsistent with naming conventions (if the latter, see my reply to Hmains just below)? Also, don't you agree that disambiguation of Los Angeles County (by adding , California) wrongly implies that the name Los Angeles County conflicts with other uses of that name? If so, don't you also agree that a misleading implication like that, or the elimination of being able to know whether disambiguation implies other significant uses, is a problem? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current title is unambiguous, accurate, and consistent with one common convention for article titles, so I see no problem here needing to be solved, hence no move needed. --Una Smith (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the current title is unambiguous and accurate. But that's just as true for the proposed title, Los Angeles County. So on that score it's a wash. But you say the current title is consistent with "one common convention for article titles"? Which convention is that? Where is it documented? What about all the documented and long established conventions and guidelines with which the current title is inconsistent (again, see my reply to Hmains below), but with which the proposed titled is consistent? And again, don't you agree that the misleading implication of the current title that there are other significant uses of the name Los Angeles County is a problem? The upside to the move is these inconsistencies and misleading implications will be eliminated. What's the downside? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
oppose no good reason to make change; anything that can be done to help readers is of benefit; this and similar changes would do opposite. Also keep to be consistent with all its sister categories in Category:California counties. Hmains (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand the impetus for being consistent with other California county articles, but isn't consistency with other articles in Wikipedia also important, arguably more important? Isn't that what naming conventions are for? WP:COMMONNAME says to use the most common name for the topic of an article. The most common name used to refer to this county is Los Angeles County, so the current title is inconsistent with that. WP:PRECISION adds that we should be precise when necessary (not merely "when anything can be done to help readers"). In this case the additional precision provided by , California is unnecessary (just as it was in Los Angeles, California which has been thankfully and finally renamed Los Angeles), and so the current title is inconsistent with WP:PRECISION. WP:Ddefines disambiguation as the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic. But the name Los Angeles County is associated with only one topic, the subject of this article, and so, by definition, disambiguation should not apply here. Yet the title is disambiguated never-the-less. It is true that under the Naming the specific topic articles section of that guideline it says that for place names "the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division ... often separated using a comma", but again, that is for when disambiguation is needed. Don't you agree that being consistent with all these fundamental naming conventions and guidelines by which all other Wikipedia articles are named is a good reason to change the title of this article? Don't you agree that just because articles for other California counties are named incorrectly (except those that are disambiguated with , California because there really is a conflict for its name, presumably with a county of the same name in another state) is no excuse to perpetuate the same error here? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no disambiguation at issue here. If disambiguation were at issue, then the proposed move would be a step backward. --Una Smith (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. There is no disambiguation issue here. So why is the current title disambiguated from the most common name used to refer to the topic of this article? In other words, why is the title not disambiguated all the way to continent, Los Angeles County, California, United States of America, North America? Of course, that's rhetorical. The answer, is because it is unnecessary to dab all the way to continent. But what is the basis for disambiguating it at all? Why is it not at Los Angeles County? Isn't it equally unnecessary to dab even to state? So (this is not rhetorical), why is it unnecessarily (which is contrary to WP:PRECISION) dabbed to state? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That city-specific guideline, which continues to conflict with the overall guidelines for cities that are not on the AP list and do not require disambiguation, does not apply to county names. So I understand what you would like, but what you would like is inconsistent with the guidelines. But in the end, despite claims that Wikipedia is not a democracy, "might makes right" around here, so you'll probably have your way, judging by how the voting is going so far. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.