Template talk:Los Angeles County, California

California: Los Angeles Template‑class

This template 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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by Los Angeles area task force.

]

Its pretty much standard across the county nav templates to abbreviate census-designated place as CDP. If a user is unsure what CDP means, they can click on the wikilink. VerruckteDan (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few Louisiana parish templates that list them as "Census-designated places", but I don't think any navbox for a US county does, while hundreds list them as "CDPs". Moreover, it's not like the link goes to CDP: it goes to census-designated place. Nyttend (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have to remember that WP is used by everybody from students to savants, and most people are unfamiliar with technical abbreviations. I can't put my finger on a WP policy regarding abbreviations right now, but most stylebooks warn against using odd abbreviations, and this is certainly one of them. If you can find a policy either allowing or (preferably) favoring the use of CDP, kindly let everybody know. Also, it does readers no favor to make them click on a link to find out what any given word or abbreviation actually means when it can be simply presented to them in the first place. VSY (very sincerely yours),

]

P.S. WP stands for Wikipedia. (Smile.)

The idea of a "census-designated place" is unfamiliar to many people. We don't need to use abbreviations with many other things too, but we do. Navigational templates, after all, aren't everything; if you're looking at the San Gabriel article and decide you want to look at Lennox, it won't take that long, and as soon as you get to the Lennox article, you'll see an explanation of what CDP means. Please don't continue taking the template away from the usual format. Nyttend (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would find Census-designated place only slightly less obscure than CDP. Since there's room, we could consider spelling out here; but it's not mandatory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in every respect with PMAnderson. Powers ^T 14:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should add the above link to the template because it gives more information about the cities in LA County and it's more specific than the

]

It is most likely the first such article, but then again there is no other county/parish/etc. in the United States that has over 85 incorporated municipalities. Almost every other such page, if created, would be relatively short that they would eventually be merged back into their respective main article. For example, I personally would see no reason to split something like

the recommended 32 KB limit. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You could find a few other counties with this many municipalities: Cook County, Illinois, St. Louis County, Minnesota, and a few Pennsylvania counties (perhaps Allegheny, Chester, and Montgomery) but they're not all the same type of municipality. Thanks for the explanation: I didn't understand why you thought this should be any different from any other county. Nyttend (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that my explanation helped you understand it now.--Crzycheetah 19:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this revert, first of all I don't see how Category:Los Angeles navigational boxes is that that relevant, having infoboxes for parts of LA city does not prevent this infobox from listing LA city's unincorporated communities, and I'm not advocating that the LA infoboxes be deleted.

Secondly, they are unincorporated communities, see

. Unincorporated communities can exist entirely within a municipality; what matters is not whether the community is within an incorporated or unincorporated area, but whether the community itself is incorporated. My understanding is that normally, county navboxes list even unincorporated communities that are completely within a municipality.

Lastly, what's the problem with large size? Large size might make it worth having infoboxes for parts of the parts of LA city for organizational reasons, but again that doesn't prevent this infobox from listing LA city's unincorporated communities. I can see how it might be a problem to list the simply LA city unincorporated communities normally, there are so many of them that they would overwhelm the non-LA city ones, but that's not a plobleam here. I gave them thiar own subsection within "Unincorporated communities" Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First,

Refimprove

}} and lacks sufficient citations.

And yes, in terms of size, I quote

other stuff exists" argument (e.g. "Template:Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania does it too") is not a valid reason to include all the City of LA districts and communities on this county template. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

And if you are wondering: No, LA County and the City of LA are NOT coterminous. That is another reason why the Template: Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania standard should not apply here too. Again, I'm puzzled how you got the idea that Hollywood, for example, is commonly regarded in California or the LA area as an "unincorporated community" when other reliable sources such as the LA Times page I mentioned above refer to them as "districts or neighborhoods within the city of LA". Even the Hollywood article does not use the term "unincorporated community" to describe it. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to know what do you plan to do with the other districts in LA county that are inside municipalities (or as you would put it "unincorporated communities"), such as those in the cities of

WP:NAVBOX: "templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use" (emphasis added). They were not originally designed to be the size of separate list pages with over 300 or 400 links, you know (which iit will be if every single populated place in LA County is included). Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Ghost towns

Hello all, I just noticed that the bottom of this template includes places categorized as "ghost towns," but includes Tongva villages that were abandoned or depopulated by Spanish colonialism without leaving much in the way of ruins or structures. I appreciate the need for a category for known settlements that are no longer inhabited, but I don't think "Ghost town" is the proper designation for a category--am I totally off-base on this?--Rockero (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This could be changed to "Former settlements", like what is currently on Template:Alameda County, California, Template:El Dorado County, California, Template:Kern County, California, and others. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know that anyone is in charge of this template but I think the whole Ghost Towns/former Settlements should probably be spun off into its own thing anyway. jengod (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]