Talk:Los Angeles/Hollywood

Redirect
Copied in from Talk:Hollywood (disambiguation)

As Los Angeles/Hollywood is so much more famous (4), any objections to the following? ~ 203.144.143.10 13:10, 31 December 2006 (EST)
 * redirect Hollywood to Los Angeles/Hollywood
 * add to Los Angeles/Hollywood
 * create Hollywood (disambiguation)
 * Sounds good. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 13:13, 31 December 2006 (EST)
 * Good idea! -- (WT-en) Colin 21:25, 1 January 2007 (EST)


 * Should the main article actually be named Hollywood instead of Los Angeles/Hollywood? Wikivoyage has been consistent in ignoring government boundaries when they don't make sense for travel, and this seems like another such case.  While Hollywood is technically a sub-division within LA, there are literally dozens of such sub-divisions (see WikiPedia:List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles) that are essentially independent cities that share government resources and are thus lumped under the umbrella of "Los Angeles".  Studio City, Universal City and Sherman Oaks are similar examples.  If we treat all of these as part of LA then we'll have quite a large number of "Los Angeles/Name" articles, which I don't think is the best way to organize an LA-area travel guide. -- (WT-en) Ryan 21:52, 1 January 2007 (EST)


 * I'm in favor of this, although I think we should be careful with it. I'd be more wary with making legally-distinct cities into neighborhoods of their metropolis. --(WT-en) Evan 21:56, 1 January 2007 (EST)


 * Strongly agree with changing the name. I first filled in this page 18 months ago and I'm a long-time L.A. resident. No one evers calls it Los Angeles/Hollywood.    (WT-en) Luvdapug 22:13, 1 January 2007 (EST)


 * I agree -- especially since this kind of thing (massive sprawling cities where regions of the city are given a different name and are useful to the traveller as separate articles) is endemic throughout the Southern California region. -- (WT-en) Colin 18:31, 2 January 2007 (EST)


 * Great, a discussion at last! Evan, I've gone through and clarified which are and aren't cities so I think we're out of that danger zone. Luvdapug, it is named as Los Angeles/Hollywood since it is a district of LA city, and that's how we're supposed to name districts, although this is now being debated since LA has so many districts and some are so famous. Since you guys seem to know LA, can you maybe help on the discussions on Talk:Los_Angeles and Talk:Los_Angeles/West? I'd like to put a lot more work into the LA pages soon and maybe try to draw up some maps, but there's still grey areas that need to be worked out. Thanks! (WT-en) Cacahuate 02:56, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Food
Looking at the food selection here there are alot of "tourist" hot-spots shown here to eat. There are alot of tourist that would like to try more authentic, home-made food. I wanted to recommend some places in East Hollywood where they can try authentic Salvadoran, Mexican, Guatemalan, Aremenian, and Colombian food. Not all tourist would go to these non-tourist spots, but if you want to experience the real diverse culture offered then this would be a good idea.


 * Feel free to add anything you like, that's what a wiki is all about! For the record though, I think only about 1/2 of the restaurants listed in this article are tourist oriented. Make sure to be somewhat selective in what you add, as we don't want to list every restaurant in Hollywood just because they exist. This should be a discerning list of restaurants that we think visitors will like. So, plunge forward! – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 21:04, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Beverly Garland Hotel
Hey there anonymous editor... I think you've finally noticed my edit comments when I've been reverting your addition of this hotel, sorry, I should have left a note here sooner but I forgot! this hotel is in North Hollywood, which is an entirely different area than Hollywood (there's a whole mountain range in between them). The hotel is already listed in that article, where it should be. Hope that clears up the confusion! – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 20:42, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Part of Los Angeles?
I was talking similar in Sydney, but since this is America and I know that even though suburbs are municipalities they tend to be called apart of the actual city but are really not. Aiiight...this is what I am thinkin' about this one. Ok, in America, cities maybe like apart of a city metro area and people might genralize and say like "oh yeah we live in Sacramento" (when they rea;;y Loomis in outer metro) yayyayaya. But to me, in actual definition these places are their own, and should be carried out. Hollywood is it's own city from my knowledge (gets a lil iffy on where LAs borders are) and should not be defined as apart of Los Angeles. It can be mention in the metro area page, but only minor mentions in LA itself, and def. no district. I think this should me moved to it's own. Hollywood as I recall is apart of SoCal "Megalopolis" and ya, but it's its own city from LA. Am I crazy? Sorry for disrupting anyonee. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 21:26, 4 November 2008 (EST).


 * It's technically and legally part of LA city... but we treat it as a separate entity, which is why it has its own article, and why it resides at "Hollywood" and not "Los Angeles/Hollywood"... so what the heck are you referring to? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 02:57, 5 November 2008 (EST)


 * Sorry, um, well I just thought Hollywood was it's own city and should not be considered apart of an LA District. Of course, I was wrong, dumb me, you see Hollywood is apart of Los Angeles.  I should really shut mah mouth, eh?  Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee talk 10:22, 5 November 2008 (EST).

It seems anomalous that the name of the article isn't Los Angeles/Hollywood. There is a Hollywood, Florida, too. Is there a good reason not to change the article's name? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See the above 11-year-old conversation about moving this article from Los Angeles/Hollywood to Hollywood, and creating a Hollywood (disambiguation). The main argument for this article not being Los Angeles/Hollywood, is that this "Hollywood" is much more famous than any of the others, and that travellers don't care about the political detail of this destination being a part of the city of Los Angeles. "The traveller Comes First" here, and the traveller thinks of this destination as "Hollywood". That's how I read the previous discussion, anyhow. JimDeLaHunt (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, but I disagree. My point would be that the article should be Los Angeles/Hollywood because it's a district of Los Angeles and listed as one in Los Angeles. We wouldn't refer to it as anything but Hollywood at the beginning of the article and would never use the full article name in any prose in the article, but the name should be based on consistency in the hierarchy, in my opinion. And if you'd like to pursue the idea that Hollywood is better known as such, then what about Beverly Hills (which is not part of the City of Los Angeles), Malibu, Culver City, Santa Monica (also not part of LA city)? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (Shrug) OK, you disagree. But this is one of those choices where reasonable people can differ. I don't feel strongly about where this destination fits into the hierarchy, except that The traveller comes first. But I do feel strongly that we in 2017 should be aware that our colleagues have had similar discussions in 2006 and 2008, and give consideration to the conclusions they came to. We should not imagine we are the first to bring up issues like this. JimDeLaHunt (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * four years later. If this is going to be dotm, it needs to be renamed to Los Angeles/Hollywood, in line with policy. For that matter, we'd need to be renaming Rome/Vatican to Vatican City if we're going to use JimDeLaHunt's rationale. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 00:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind that I moved your reply to the end of the thread, so as to avoid confusion. Not surprisingly, I completely agree with you, as I did 4 years ago. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving it below. Probably should have commented below in the first place, but anyway, JimDeLaHunt doesn't seem to be active anymore. Any objections to moving it before I do tomorrow to make it in line with our policy? -- SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 01:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that Hollywood should be breadcrumbed under Los Angeles. The dog2 (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've renamed the page. SHB2000 (talk &#124; contribs &#124; meta.wikimedia) 06:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Sleep listings
There's a lot of budget chains in the Sleep sections with no reviews in them, which takes away from the solid hotel reviews that are already there? Can I delete some budget hotel listings as I feel its good to have quality reviews rather than quantity in these sections? Thanks --(WT-en) MarinaK 20:49, 11 November 2008 (EST)MarinaK. I deleted the aforementioned hotels and added reviews to some as I didn't hear back, but if people feel strongly about this, its fine to revert my edits. --(WT-en) MarinaK 14:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)MarinaK


 * Hmmm, actually I think it's OK here, they are not excessive listings like on the current nightmarish Rome article. They could be expanded with a few words, to make it all look good, like; "The usual impersonal, but well functioning Best Western standard, if you are into that sort of thing. Amnesties include free wireless, 24 hour reception and non smoking rooms" that's what I usually do.(WT-en) Sertmann 14:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)

Chinese Theater pic
I really dislike the extremely distorted photo of Grauman's Chinese Theater that we're using in this article. However, I don't like any of the other photos in Commons Category:Grauman's Chinese Theatre, either, except for File:The Chinese Theatre, Hollywood, California (62694).jpg, which is a scan of a postcard. So if any of you enterprising photographers would like to try for a good, well-lit, undistorted picture of this theater, please upload it to Commons and link it instead of the thumbnail currently in the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)