The following extlink was added in a manner that suggests the site was advertising itself: http://www.experiencela.com On the other hand, it does look like it might be a useful calendaring site if the extlink policy changes. If someone from LA could evaluate it, that'd be helpful. -- Colin 13:17, 2 Sep 2004 (EDT)
It is one of the best guides on the internet for the Los Angeles area. It's sponsored by a bunch of government agencies, so it doesn't have any advertising. The only real minus to the website is that it doesn't really cover any of the minuses for LA. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 02:36, 19 Dec 2004 (EST)
"It's called the Metro, and it's actually only a subway in a few parts of downtown L.A. - the rest of the time it's above-ground light rail."
This isn't true. The Metro red line is a true subway, its below ground all 12 miles. Someone must be confusing it with the blue line that is light rail.
The Gold Line is also above ground for most of it's path. 126.96.36.199 17:00, 20 September 2006 (EDT)
The Green Line light rail in South and Southeast Los Angeles is also above ground, mostly in a freeway median
Urbanrail.com which I consider the foremost authority on such issues calls Red and Purple line subways, and blue, green and yellow lines, light rail. --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 18:54, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
It should be mentioned that The Pantry actually has been closed for one day... It failed a county health inspection. It did open up again very quickly, however, due to being owned by Mayor Riordan.
If you feel it should not be in the guide by all means feel free to take it out, however, that is no guarantee that The Pantry won't be reinserted later. - Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 20:04, 29 May 2006 (EDT)
Is the Metro Kafkaesque or is it one of the easiest and cheapest ways to get around town? It looks like there are two conflicting views expressed here; perhaps someone with more knowledge of LA can merge them appropriately. Hopefully before my next trip to LA. ;-) -- Jonboy 18:43, 28 June 2006 (EDT)
The answer is that it's probably both Kafkaesque while still being the easiest and cheapest way to get around town - traveling in LA just really sucks whether it's on public transport or in a car ;). This entire article is in dire need of a cleanup, but Jani has listed it as a future Wikitravel:Collaboration of the week so hopefully it will get some much needed attention then. -- Ryan 18:46, 28 June 2006 (EDT)
The metro-trashing makes this article infantile and useless. How about providing actual information for potential travelers instead of accusatory supposition? -C
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Metro still sucks hard enough for it to be quite insufficient for tourism. (And I say this as a rabid public transport fanboy who doesn't even have a driving license.) If you want to tour LA, you pretty much need to rent a car, period. Jpatokal 23:27, 27 November 2006 (EST)
Yeah, definitely not ideal, but it has its usefulness for a handful of budget travelers and those wanting a different way to head downtown... hard to rely on it in total, but if you're trying to keep the costs down, you can make some use of it... Cacahuate 06:33, 28 November 2006 (EST)
I know several people who have visited LA recently and used the metro to get around, and they have had no problems. It is slower than driving, and it doesn't go everywhere, but it goes to many of the major tourist attractions. I certainly don't think this article should imply that a car is "needed" in Los Angeles, because many visitors get by just fine without one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs)
I think the new edits are fair, but I've modified them slightly to note that even with recent improvements LA lags far behind comparable Western cities for public transportation, and that needs to be called out clearly. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:00, 4 September 2010 (EDT)
I disagree with these edits. What "comparable Western cities" are we referring to? Los Angeles has the third busiest light rail system and ninth busiest subway in the US. It may lag behind New York, Chicago and the like, but it is definitely superior to the majority of large American cities.
Also, I disagree with the assertion that those who can afford it will "definitely want to rent a car." This is not true based on the experiences of my own guests who have visited LA recently, and may lead visitors into unnecessary hassle and traffic delays.
is it ok to link to wikipedia sites such as (IATA: LAX) in the transport section or should it just be (LAX)? Cacahuate 09:13, 28 October 2006 (EDT)
Since the IATA and ICAO templates are local to Wikitravel, they can redirect the templates whenever necessary. So we've been slowly converting all the links to (IATA: LAX) or (IATA: SMO, ICAO: KSMO) format. Generally, IATA is used for the major airports, ICAO for the smaller general aviation airports; ICAO is planned to eventually replace IATA. In any case, having _some_ tag here so they can be found is better than having no tag.--justfred 13:11, 28 October 2006 (EDT)
So there's already a discussion going on on the Talk:Los Angeles/West page about the Westside, but I'd also like help just figuring out the grey areas in general of the city so we can make some clearer boundaries for the existing and future district pages. Since it's a Huge City, it should conform to that template, but it needs a few things sorted and at least one or two more districts before we can move stuff off the main Los Angeles page.
Los Angeles/East covering the areas between Hollywood and Downtown such as Los Feliz, Silverlake, Echo Park, Koreatown and MacArthur Park - someone mentioned on that talk page that the name conflicts with the actual "East LA", but I don't think it does and that page hasn't even been created yet. I think there's room for both when the time comes. But if someone thinks of a better name for this area...
West Hollywood - what is it's eastern border? WH is a weird shape if you actually look at a map, but I think we should make it a little more square for the sake of a travel guide - i think we should pick either Crescent Heights or Fairfax as it's border.
So what to do with the middle area between West Hollywood and downtown that is south of Hollywood? Firstly I think we should pick a street that is the southern border of Hollywood - for me, Hollywood consists of Franklin, Hollywood and Sunset Blvds.
Then you have Mid-Wilshire, which could be it's own district article at a point maybe... but what about the areas in between Mid-Wilshire and Hollywood, such as Santa Monica Blvd, Melrose Ave, Beverly Blvd and Third St? Melrose is probably the most deserving of it's own district page, so one thought is to call it Los Angeles/Melrose and have it cover the greater Melrose area, but some would probably not like that including me. Or Los Angeles/Central but that's not really accurate either. Perhaps if Fountain was made the border for Hollywood's south then everything between SMB and Wilshire Blvd could be one district? Or SMB to Third St one district, then Wilshire down to Pico or Venice Blvd it's own district?
Also, should Melrose, Beverly and Third St to the west of Crescent Hts be considered West Hollywood for the sake of this guide?
If you know LA well, please help! Cacahuate 06:49, 22 December 2006 (EST)
And what about Larchmont Blvd? Cacahuate 06:54, 22 December 2006 (EST)
Well, more thoughts after looking at the Wikitravel page for Hollywood. They link to this neighborhood council map which is a good reference. If we went with that then we could possibly define the Hollywood borders as Franklin to the north (except the part that gets into Los Feliz), Vermont to the east, La Brea to the west and Melrose to the south. I think it makes a lot of sense to have Melrose covered in Hollywood. The only small disagreement I have is that I think that Fairfax Ave should be the border between Hollywood and West Hollywood. And then businesses on those four border streets should be included in the Hollywood article also. Cacahuate 07:19, 22 December 2006 (EST)
Also useful could be this list of districts from Wikipedia page... the district box at the very bottom I think is good and well thought out - the only exception would be that I would combine the sections for "Eastern Los Angeles", "Echo Park and Westlake" and "Los Feliz and Silverlake" and use Los Angeles/East to cover all of those areas. Cacahuate 07:34, 22 December 2006 (EST)
The name seems wrong. It may be east of Hollywood, but a lot of it is west of Downtown. How about "Near North? North of Downtown up to and including Griffith Park, west to about Western (where Los Feliz ends). Going far enough east to include Highland Park, Eagle Rock, etc. It all tends to be Hispanic down in the flats, but Anglo up on the hilltops.
Maybe it would be better to start with a long list of subjective neighborhoods, so for example Little Ethiopia, the old Jewish part of Fairfax, and the new Russian area on Fairfax and east along Santa Monica are three separate items. Then decide how to lump these into larger groupings. Simply running a boundary down Fairfax does violence to what's actually going on at the neighborhood level. If you begin at the subjective neighborhood level, you're not so tempted to draw lines on a map. In reality, neighborhoods intersect and overlap. They are states of mind more than physical locations. For example the Wilshire Corridor cuts through residential neighborhoods that may not differ very much on either side of the highrise corridor. It's hard to say whether the focus of the neighborhood is the high rises along Wilshire or the temples and shuls along Pico and Olympic. Maybe both, depending on the day of the week. Koreatown is an area where practically all the businesses are Korean, but the majority of residents happen to be Hispanic. There is an Asian Indian concentration along Venice Blvd in and near Culver City, but they probably aren't a majority of the population there. 184.108.40.206 15:32, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
One thing that has irked me about our coverage of LA is that places like Hollywood, Studio City and Universal City are technically districts of LA, but for all practical purposes they are treated as their own entities. While normally we might make these places districts, in this case I'm not sure it is the best way to build a travel guide, and given free reign I'd say that any "district" of LA that uses something other than "Los Angeles" for the mailing address (for example "1234 Example Street, HOLLYWOOD, CA") should get a separate, non-district article, which to a traveler would (I think) make sense - people aren't likely to look for Hollywood as a district of LA, they expect it to be in a standalone article...
As to the suggested breakdown you're creating, I don't know the city all that well but will try to do some research tomorrow. -- Ryan 04:31, 26 December 2006 (EST)
I took a quick look through the list at WikiPedia:List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles, and that convinced me even moreso that there are so many "districts" of LA that it doesn't make sense to treat places like Venice or Studio City as sub-articles of a larger LA article. While officially the government might be the same, from a traveler's perspective, from the perspective of most locals, and from the postal service's perspective these are all distinct entities. I suspect that if we just create districts for Los Angeles/East Side, Los Angeles/West Side, and Los Angeles/Downtown then that would cover the city of LA, and then outlying places such as Los Feliz or Hollywood could just be given their own article. Again, however, I'm still relatively new here, so other opinions are needed. -- Ryan 01:18, 27 December 2006 (EST)
I could live with Venice and Studio City where they are, as their own entities, especially ones that are that far outlying and have plenty to warrant their own article anyway. Hollywood is already a district page, I think it should stay there since it's such a central part of LA, and for the record the mailing address for that whole area is just 'Los Angeles', but a handful of people get a kick out of using 'Hollywood', and naturally the mail still arrives (although it's not unknown for mail to do a detour via Hollywood (Florida) :).
Does anyone have opinions about the borders of Hollywood, and what to call the area to the south of it? That area has plenty of stuff to make a full guide, so we should come up with something and move those listings there... Cacahuate 00:12, 28 December 2006 (EST)
So I created Los Angeles/Wilshire for now to cover the area south of Hollywood. That's roughly what Wikipedia does. If anyone's got a better idea later, speak up! But for now I've moved the listings there. - Cacahuate 20:31, 18 February 2007 (EST)
Hey there Roger, I just reverted a few of your changes to the Districts section. Firstly, we should just keep the descriptions short and sweet, and any specifics can go in the actual district articles. Secondly, while the San Fernando Valley is a part of LA city, for the sake of putting the traveler first and as far as our geographical heirarchy is concerned we're treating it as a region of Los Angeles County. Also, Hermosa, Redondo and Manhattan Beaches are included in the South Bay (Los Angeles County) article. Thanks for you contributions! – cacahuatetalk 19:14, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
There have been a few edits recently that list the San Fernando Valley as a district of LA. While that may technically be true since many cities in the Valley are technically part of LA I don't think that matches the structure we've created - the Los Angeles article is about the actual city of LA, and districts of the city include those parts that are NOT entities on their own. While places in the Valley such as Studio City or Universal City might technically be a part of LA, from a traveler's perspective (and from the perspective of someone who lives here) they are separate and I don't think it improves the guide at all to lump them into LA solely due to an unusual system in which LA acts as a parent for the many surrounding cities that it has absorbed over time. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:51, 29 January 2009 (EST)
For future reference, here is a map of the LA area and what cities are officially part of LA versus separate entities. For Wikitravel purposes many cities that are officially part of LA are listed as separate entities, such as Hollywood or Venice (California). -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:53, 14 July 2009 (EDT)
Wireless company listing
Is the "Mobile phones" list under Los Angeles#Contact really needed? That information would seem to be applicable across the US, so I'm not sure that having it in the LA article is appropriate. -- Ryan 11:47, 22 February 2007 (EST)
I'm not attached to it... I thought it varied a little across the states, but I'm not sure... feel free to trash it :) - Cacahuate 12:17, 22 February 2007 (EST)
Greyhound to downtown
"From the Greyhound station, take a taxi to get downtown." Or take the local bus, right? Or is there something wrong with the bus? Nurg 01:49, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
I just hacked down this section substantially, we really don't need that much info, it was making LA look like a disaster zone. We don't need to warn people of any possible thing that could ever happen, just things that are likely to confront travelers occasionally... and tornadoes, tsunamis and landslides are a serious stretch of the imagination. – cacahuatetalk 19:19, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Whoa! Whoa! Hold your horses, cowboy. You don't understand the threats of L.A. at all! We need to reinsert this info with the following to be added:
The most damning threat to travelers is the Meyer Centre in Brisbane. The mall may be a few thousand miles from Los Angeles, but do not be fooled for it is, in fact, scientifically possible that you may be knocked unconscious and robbed after sipping on a Coca-Cola that was gassed in the Meyer Centre, then transported to L.A. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 19:37, 2 January 2008 (EST)
always one step ahead of me Sapphire, damn you – cacahuatetalk 19:45, 2 January 2008 (EST)
The information on Wildfires should be reinserted since that is the most common and possible disaster, even more-so than earthquakes.--220.127.116.11 10:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)
The question is whether or not it's something that travelers to Los Angeles need to be worried about, and the answer is definitely no. I live in LA, I don't even think about them. It's rare that they would affect travelers, and if some break out, then we'll do what we did for the last ones, and put warning boxes on the relevant pages. – cacahuatetalk 18:58, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Hi there, PLEASE stop adding Farmer's Daughter to this page, and to others... the ONLY place that it is ok to list it is in the appropriate district article, which in this case is Los Angeles/Wilshire. I've said this to you via email before. For huge cities like LA we divide them into districts, with just a general overview of sleep-related info on the main page, and individual listings on the district pages only. Thanks! – cacahuatetalk 23:14, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
Hey there, I just got back from LA. I was trying to build something that worked to connect the LA article to the various amusement park articles. I started something then deleted it because it didn't look right, does anyone have any ideas? I don't want this to get too redundant. --18.104.22.168 13:37, 23 September 2008 (EDT)Trew
For things that are nearby but not in a city, we use the "Get out" section at the bottom of the article... I've added Disneyland, feel free to add Magic Mountain or whatever else you're thinking of. Thanks! – cacahuatetalk 20:44, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
I would hardly say that Angelenos generally consider the hotel bars the best place to have a drink. I'm sure some do, but most probably don't. That's a terribly broad generalization, especially when the term "Angelenos" encompasses such a broad group, and there are so many places to get a drink in this city. I doubt anyone I know would agree with that statement.
I couldn't do it...just tossing the idea in the air...anyone familiar with L A Metro want to do a district map? Maybe akin to the Vancouver or Copenhagen ones? Keep smiling, eetalk 21:19, 4 November 2008 (EST).
It's high on my list, I'll be working on it very soon – cacahuatetalk 02:55, 5 November 2008 (EST)
Any news on this? I always thought it was weird how poorly LA compares to San Francisco considering how many regulars and admins live in the area - and how big a destination it is. I think a map would help help a lot in encouraging casual passers by to add stuff --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 10:57, 7 May 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, still high on my list! Just trying to get the time to sit down and do it. It's not the easiest city to chop up, but it shall be done..... – cacahuatetalk 11:11, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
Los Angeles' massive sprawl and dysfunctional public transportation makes getting around rather painful, especially during weekends when service can be more erratic. The only rational way of getting around is to rent a car, in which case you'll get a crash course in the complex freeway system and, if you're "lucky," a taste of the notorious traffic jams.
...seems rather more realistic than this:
Los Angeles' massive size limits ease of travel around the city. Despite a growing rail transit system that covers many of the city's sightseeing destinations, some may find it easier to rent a car. Los Angeles is home to the second-largest bus transit system in the United States, and much of the central city is blanketed with coverage.
I'd suggest that and other edits be examined — edit summaries such as "adding more neutral language" suggest the contributor may not be familiar with Wikitravel:Be fair and Wikitravel:Tone, and how this site differs from Wikipedia. Gorilla Jones 09:00, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
I beg to differ that LA has a 'dysfunctional' public transit system. That language is rooted in old cliches and isn't a help to those visiting the city. While you're right - I don't need to focus on "neutral" language (and from here on out won't), the point of the transportation entry is to ensure people visiting Los Angeles know what to expect. Yes, the Los Angeles metro area is sprawling. But keep in mind that most attractions that most visitors will be seeing are within a relatively compact area, well-served by public transportation. Alossix 17:47, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
Different people are going to have different experiences of a city. I've navigated LA only by public transport during two stays there, and the bus system is comprehensive, and I didn't find anywhere that I couldn't get public transport to. The bus drivers (except on the Disneyland route) looked genuinely surprised to see someone non-local on the bus, and went out of their way to explain the routes, and point out the stops to interchange at, and seemed to have a genuine interest in getting you where you were going. Getting the metro to Hollywood Blvd is a breeze, and without any parking hassles. I have to say changing buses downtown and even in Hollywood after dark was a little on the scary side, as was waiting outside of NBC for a bus late at night. I wouldn't do those things again. I like the language of the former, but to say that the only rational choice in LA is to get a car sounds a little to opinionated to me. Last time I tried to drive from Universal City to LAX I ended up stuck on the 101 while my plane flew over. I can also imagine that for people uncomfortable with freeway driving, or driving on the right, or whatever, that they may not want to drive in LA, and might want to know there are practical alternatives.
In essence, we need to separate the discussion on tone from the discussion on public transport in LA. Lets keep the tone, but lets not be unduly harsh on LA transport, by comparison San Francisco gets a good write up on public transport, and navigating that city by public transport IMO sucks. Half the attractions there aren't on any transport route, MUNI is just so slow, and doesn't integrate in the region. BART is so sparse outside of the city. No such probs in LA. --inas 20:39, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
Just an anecdote, but when I was in LA a few years back, I investigated getting from El Segundo (LAX) to the Getty Museum on public transport. At the time, this would have required taking the train plus three different buses with transfers in dodgy neighborhoods, and even this gauntlet would have been impossible on a Sunday, as some of the buses didn't run then. It doesn't get much more dysfunctional than this!
It appears that due to some brain fart I didn't revert this after all. Should it stay, or should it go? Jpatokal 22:26, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
Or you could take the LAX Flyaway shuttle from your terminal nonstop to Westwood (the Flyaways are the best way to get to/from LAX), and the 761 Rapid Bus to the Getty Center Drive. It'd probably take under an hour. Google Transit just started offering LA Metro trip planning, but it still has yet to add Flyaway data. 22.214.171.124 03:20, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
I went through and tried to restore the good stuff that was whitewashed, although there is a bunch of lively writing that still is lost in the "Get around" section, which would be painful to fix, since there were a lot of changes. Unfortunately, the good in recent edits (trimming, organizing) is pretty thoroughly mixed with the bad (neutering), so hopefully someone more motivated than me will go through that section to merge the good from the earlier version with the good from the new.
My $0.02 on accuracy: LA's public transit is notoriously bad. If that's not entirely fair, then keep the text that refers to its notoriety, then add after it that it's not entirely fair, for X reasons. And for a city of its size and scope, LA's rail system is a bit of a joke. Bus transport is far better (by necessity), but buses are rarely a very quick way of crossing any large city. The purely whitewashed version will lack credibility, and is far less fun to read. --PeterTalk 22:45, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
I agree with the notorious part. The locals don't seem to know there is a bus network in LA, and scoff at the metro. I agree with dodgy connection locations - many involve crossing streets, walking blocks to transfer. Getting from LAX to The Getty Center on a Sunday by public transport in LA, is certainly very possible, and I'm equally confident you could do it without a transit anywhere dodgy. Is there anywhere in the world you can get from the airport to a museum in the suburbs without a connection? In many cities the airport has a single connection to the city centre, in LA you have a choice of several local buses, free shuttle to the green line, and various other express type buses to various points. I'm sure you would have three or four different options to get the Getty, even on a Sunday. It is also cheap. LA may be notorious for poor public transport, but the reality is that you can get just about anywhere, fairly cheaply by public transport if you want to, and you can get by without a car as see all the major attractions. Frequency drops after hours and on weekends, but you can generally count on at least 30 minute frequency on most services. If your trip involves more than one bus this can mean long waits at non-peak times if you are unlucky. Buses can often get caught in the same traffic jams that the rest of LA is in. Take care after dark (and sometimes during the day) as transit points can be deserted or in undesirable areas. --inas 00:05, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
Tried it again, just for yucks: it's now recommending either three buses or one train plus two buses, and the trip is possible on a Sunday.  Bonus: neither "Getty Museum" nor "1200 Getty Center Drive" were recognized by the Metro website, but "Getty Center" was accepted. Jpatokal 01:34, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
Probably because of the nature of what you want to do is to go across town. You could probably do it in one connection if you went via downtown. Cutting across town is difficult in all but the most sophisticated transit networks, and I certainly agree LA doesn't even approach one of those. It isn't Paris or Tokyo. And trip planners are for the birds, anyway. Yo need one of those A2 size fold out route maps, with the full beauty of the LA bus network laid out thereupon, and track those tiny numbers across the city. --inas 03:00, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
So you would agree that, from the traveller's POV, LA has a dysfunctional public transport system? Jpatokal 08:03, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
I guess. I agree you need a certain amount of public transport enthusiasm to cope with the buses in LA. However, this is generally true on the west coast of the US, and LA has the advantage of the dense coverage which some other cities lack. I think we are heading in the right direction. --inas 01:41, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
Maybe regional differences have a lot to say here; Coming from Europe, Japan, Singapore or Hong Kong anything outside NY or Chicago is bound to look dysfunctional, whereas people from the rest of the world probably wouldn't be quite so appalled. So who's standard to go for, when we are a global site? --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 04:17, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
At the end of the day, for any city anywhere, the question is simply "what's the best way to get around", and for LA, the answer to that is "by car". Jpatokal 11:53, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
That is pretty much true, as much as I would like to disagree. PT has improved a lot, but still has a long way to go.... I'm a big advocate for Metro expansion, and am one of the few locals I know that take it despite having a car, but.... A weekend visitor may well want to visit Hollywood Blvd, the La Brea Tarpits, the Getty, Huntington Gardens, Venice Beach, the Third St Promenade, shop in BH and spend an afternoon in Malibu.... that would be painful and quite difficult without a car – cacahuatetalk 17:22, 22 June 2009 (EDT)
Surely we are not trying to answer the question "what is the best way to get around" for every city anywhere. I don't think there is ever going to be one answer. It is always going to depend on your itinerary and personal circumstances, and the priority should be to get accurate information into the guide for the traveller to make the best choices for them. There are lots of people who travel to LA and don't hire a car. --inas 19:35, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
No, I definitely don't think we should do that, but when it's noteworthy, and when there's a clear winner, it should be mentioned.... LA is widely known for being a car-heavy city.... it is slowly moving towards other useful forms of transport, but undoing the damage intentionally inflicted by the auto industry has been a sllllooooowwww process here, and there's still a ways to go – cacahuatetalk 20:44, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
Sure. I think the intro now gives a good summary, without losing any of its color. --inas 20:42, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
Miles of coastline on the Pacific Ocean
This is actually a misleading statement in the article. Technically, yes, there are a few miles of Los Angeles that touch the Pacific, like near the airport on the western side and around the port on the southern end. But the few miles of L.A. that border the ocean are mostly used for industry such as the aforementioned airport and port facilities. Venice Beach and an area north of Santa Monica are the only beach/waterfront areas that technically lie in Los Angeles and that are accessed by the public. Los Angeles, with its whopping 464 square miles, covers more area inland than area that actually rims the coast. Suburban cities and towns like Malibu, Santa Monica, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, Long Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and several other communities see the bulk of beach visits. It seems the phrase "miles of coastline on the Pacific Ocean" is incorporating these other cities under the Los Angeles name when that would be a better statement under a "Los Angeles metro" article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs)
That's fair - I reverted the original edit because it was made without any comment provided by an anonymous editor, and as you've stated LA does in fact have many miles of coastline so it struck me as factually inaccurate. Feel free to re-update the article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:37, 14 July 2009 (EDT)
Popular Road trips should be added. For example, the popular LA -> Vegas road trip via route 66. See sites like AAA and RoadtripMania. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardeastes (talk • contribs)
I removed East L.A. as a neighborhood to avoid at all costs as I don't think it's true. While it may not be the first (or 10th) place a casual tourist will want to visit, it is a gold mine for those interested in experiencing LA's Chicano culture as well as some of the best Mexican food in the world. And with the new Gold Line extension, East LA is more accessible than ever. If I start to figure this wiki thing out, I may give it it's own page (with appropriate safety precautions). It's not Beverly Hills, but it's not a war-zone either.--Guero57 22:02, 17 May 2010 (EDT)guero57
Given the range in safety between places such as Compton and Bel-Air our Los Angeles articles could probably do a better job conveying how "safe" a neighborhood actually is. You're right that East LA is definitely worth visiting, and I think we can probably revisit safety concerns as the articles further develop. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:18, 17 May 2010 (EDT)
starting point for grouping into districts
Well maybe at last we can get a districts map going :)
I think the entire valley can be one color and grouped as San Fernando Valley, another map can reside there with the breakdown.
Not sure what to do with Pacific Palisades, Brentwood, Bel-Air and Beverly Crest.... don't all need own articles.
How should we group the eastern areas? Los Feliz-Atwater? Silverlake-Echo Park (and include Elysian?)?
Can everything from Eagle Rock down to Boyle Heights and Lincoln Heights etc all fit as East LA?
Everything from Mid-Wilshire through Westlake into Los Angeles/Wilshire? Or break off Koreatown-Westlake?
What to do with Mar Vista & Palms & Playa Vista?
For South, can Baldwin Hills through southeast LA and Watts all go in Los Angeles/South?
Not sure how soon I'll be able to work on this, if someone else has the urge to map it go for it – cacahuatetalk 21:30, 11 July 2010 (EDT)
A note regarding the map shown - I think the districts of LA are better handled like we did New York City rather than trying to create just a handful of "Los Angeles/District" articles. The approach thus far has been to try to split Los Angeles County into logical regions, and then break those regions into city articles where it makes sense, so for example Culver City and Marina del Rey have their own articles since they are municipalities with defined borders, but neighborhoods such as Palms (per Wikipedia: "Palms has no official boundaries") are grouped into more general articles.
Given that starting point, the breakdown we currently have is the following, which duplicates some cities and may need cleanup. A map would help greatly in showing areas that we treat as municipalities versus the more ambiguous "Los Angeles/District" articles, which aren't well thought out or well-defined. Additionally, it would show us where we have gaps or where we have articles for things that should be articles:
I don't by any means think that the list above should not be changed, but it is helpful in showing the amount of material we're dealing with and why a map would be helpful in figuring out how best to organize things. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:52, 11 July 2010 (EDT)