Talk:Downtown Los Angeles

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Downtown Los Angeles article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

California: Los Angeles / Southern California Mid‑importance

	California portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as High-importance).

Urban studies and planning Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning 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.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Research

Hi there, I'm researching Downtown LA. I'm interested in any opinions or stories, or statistics about the area or the people who live in it. I'm also interested in the current issues that are pressing in Downtown, either in the economy or any other social situation. Please help to create this discussion arena. Thank you.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.137 (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was seven years ago. Still interested? -- AlikaAlex 16:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alikaalex (talk • contribs)

This article needs a map badly

For those of us living outside of, and unfamiliar with, Los Angeles, this mapless article is disorienting. Someone should do a map, especially of the downtown's various neighborhoods ... c'mmon geographers! ...

FurnaldHall 09:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added two regional maps showing Downtown in relation to the greater Los Angeles area. Unfortunately I don't have the skills to do a map of the various subdistricts.Rich Alossi 18:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alossix (talk • contribs)

Building height

The buildings date from the early 1900s, with the topmost floors of most of the office buildings at mostly 14 and 15 stories. This was enforced because of the earthquake risk; thus, the Los Angeles City Hall was the tallest building for decades at 454 ft., until the development of Century City, in the western part of the Los Angeles basin.

I've that this is an urban legend, and that the law restricting heights was actually designed to keep the City Hall the tallest building in L.A. Can anyone find a source to settle it one way or another? -Willmcw 01:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno---will research when I have the time. My library here in NorCal allows remote access to ProQuest Historical Newspapers which has scanned NYT articles for 1851-2001. Hooray! --Coolcaesar 04:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first height limit ordnance in Los Angeles was enacted following the completion of the 13 story Continental Building (about 175 feet tall, if I recall correctly- I can't find confirmation on the Internet) at 4th and Spring Streets. The purpose of the height limit was to limit the density of the city. There was great hostility to skyscrapers in many cities in these years, mainly due to the congestion they could bring to the streets, and height limit ordinances were a common way of dealing with the problem. I believe the original L.A. ordinance established a limit of 13 storeys but no specific limit in feet. In 1911, the city passed an updated height limit ordinance, establishing a specific limit of 150 feet. Exceptions were granted for decorative towers such as those later built on the now-demolished Richfield building and the still-extant Eastern-Columbia Building.

Though there is a common belief that the limits were imposed due to the risk of earthquakes, it is notable that the first limit was imposed in 1904, two years before the San Francisco earthquake, and that even after that seismic event it was long believed in Los Angeles that Southern California (despite historic evidence to the contrary) was not subject to such violent temblors. The motivation behind height limits was primarily to limit congestion in the city. I recall discussions about the height limit from the period that were cited or quoted in books and articles I read many years ago, but unfortunately I do not now have access to those publications, and I read so many books about Los Angeles that I can't even remember which books and articles contained those discussions. They are out there, though. I'm sure somebody could find them.

It's also notable that the height limits were first imposed long before the 1928 City Hall was built, so the story that they were enacted in order to keep the City Hall the tallest building in town are also mere legends. The 1911 ordinance was repealed in 1957. The first private building to exceed the old limit was the 18 story California Bank Building at 6th and Spring. Whyaduck 04:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first attempt at wikipedia so I do not know if I am posting this correctly. I was contacted by the local paper, the Downtown News, due to the vast number of factual errors in this listing. And, looking it over, it needs far more than just an edit. It needs a top to bottom rewrite. What is the policy on this? I might add I am the former president (and current VP) of the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council, on the board of the Historic Core BID, have just started the Los Angeles Museum and my family has been Downtown for four generations - Bradywestater July 2007

Image problem

The previous image of "Bunker Hill as viewed from a parking ramp at USC" did not show Bunker Hill. As a former resident of both USC and Bunker Hill, I can say without doubt that it is not visible from campus. Rather, the view is of the Financial District. Bunker Hill lies on the opposite side (North) of the Financial District and is impossible to see from the USC campus (South). I have corrected the image's caption and added images of two notable landmarks from Bunker Hill towards the bottom. Bobak 20:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   * Los Angeles Travel Guide (WikiTravel article)
   * Become an LA insider with Orbitz podcasts.
   * City of Los Angeles Official Web Site
   * LA INC.: Los Angeles Convention & Visitors Bureau
   * Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
   * Los Angeles: Historic Sites Online, from the University of Southern California
   * Los Angeles: Past, Present and Future, from the University of Southern California
   * Communities of the City of Los Angeles, and unincorporated communicities within the City of Los Angeles , Los Angeles Almanac
   * Los Angeles Travel Guide (WikiTravel article)
   * Become an LA insider with Orbitz podcasts.
   * City of Los Angeles Official Web Site
   * LA INC.: Los Angeles Convention & Visitors Bureau
   * Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
   * Los Angeles: Historic Sites Online, from the University of Southern California
   * Los Angeles: Past, Present and Future, from the University of Southern California
   * Communities of the City of Los Angeles, and unincorporated communicities within the City of Los Angeles , Los Angeles Almanac
   * Los Angeles Travel Guide (WikiTravel article)
   * Become an LA insider with Orbitz podcasts.
   * City of Los Angeles Official Web Site
   * LA INC.: Los Angeles Convention & Visitors Bureau
   * Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
   * Los Angeles: Historic Sites Online, from the University of Southern California
   * Los Angeles: Past, Present and Future, from the University of Southern California
   * Communities of the City of Los Angeles, and unincorporated communicities within the City of Los Angeles , Los Angeles Almanac

Editing first sentence

"Downtown Los Angeles is the center of metropolitan Los Angeles, California, if not necessarily its heart."

I think a better sentence would be, "Downtown Los Angeles is the geographic center of metropolitan Los Angeles, California." More concise, and the "heart" comment seems slightly irrelevant. I'm changing it--I'm a novice at Wikipedia, though, so if I've violated some protocol, please change it back!

Mcgillionaire 15:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Central) City West

It looks like the Westlake neighborhood article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westlake%2C_Los_Angeles%2C_California) has claimed City West (although not by name) as its own. Does anyone know where City West ends and Westlake begins? If so, maybe the argument can be made to correct that article. --Alika 00:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Los Angeles

This news article indicates that Downtown Los Angeles may be in need of a once over. Would you mind reading through Downtown Los Angeles to see whether any changes need to be made. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is very disorganized and needs complete overhaul

I propose the following outline (which could certainly include many more sub headings):

Physical Location (include discussion already posted)
Sub-Districts (the ones listed already plus more)
History (this could include the height-limit part)
Transportation (regional hub for train, intra- and inter-regional bus, DASH, Metro lines, freeways, . . .)
Residential Community (increase in downtown living through loft conversion)
Employers (public and private)
Tourist Attractions
Architecture/Historic Preservation (Adaptive reuse, LA Conservancy, etc.)
Cultural Institutions (museums, music center, etc.)
Educational Institutions (USC, UCLA Extension, Colburn School, FIDM, SCI-Arc, etc.
Athletic Venues
Shopping (e.g., Fashion, Jewelry, Olvera Street, Electronics, Beads, . . . )
Downtown Los Angeles in Films/Popular Culture (people will love to add their own favorite film to this section)
Media (located in and/or serving downtown, e.g. La Opinion, LA Daily Journal, Downtown News, LA Times, Garment & Citizen, etc.

I don't know the wiki-etiquette for this, but the current entry really needs to be scrapped and re-worked from the ground up. I will volunteer to do it, but I don't want to get myself into trouble if I take down the stuff that's already there. I could certainly work in a lot of what is there now, but it really, really needs a lot of work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poodle90254 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that this needs an overhaul. As a transportation planner, the entire History section is filled with unsubstantiated assertions that are at best controversial. The history of transportation in L.A. reads much differently, and "History" should encompass much more than transportation anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.138.16 (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on the overhaul. I've got some time today and will attempt to get more work done. I put a lot of work into editing the Attractions section (organized by neighborhood). Please let me know what you think and/or whether the format is improper. I've been learning a lot about the format. Also added photos that I took and ones that I was given explicit permission to upload under Creative Commons-Attribution (noted where applicable).Alossix (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Rich Alossi[reply]

I don't mean to be a spoiler, but parts of this article are beginning to read like something out of Wikitravel. Remember, WP is not a not a travel guide. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I will attempt to be more encyclopedic and will look over my edits. Alossix (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul of Downtown LA entry

I spent a few days working on the Downtown entry. I think it's gone fairly well. New sections have been added and existing sections rewritten for accuracy, neutrality and breadth.

Check out the new photos, history section (still very much incomplete, but much of it is beyond my ability to write), attractions section (edited to remove 'tourist guide'-type language), construction projects, and my favorite, the public transportation section.

Maybe curious visitors and Angelenos can get a sense of what our neighborhood's about now.

What do you think of adding a nightlife/dining section? Is that beyond the scope of this article?

Alossix (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Rich Alossi[reply]

Removed "citation needed" notice at top of article with the addition of 1904 building height limit info reference. Rich Alossi 06:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alossix (talk • contribs)

Exposition Park

Howcum Expo Park is in this article? It is certainly not in downtown L.A. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since some sources, including the Downtown News, LA Times, and area Councilwoman Jan Perry all consider Expo Park to be a part of Downtown, I included that information. It's definitely a debatable topic, and I'm not sure I personally agree with it. But since it's mentioned as a topic of debate in the very first paragraph of the article, and I cited sources, that's the reasoning behind it. It's the same with the City West neighborhood.Rich Alossi (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not true, according to http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/neighborhood/downtown/. See separate item on this talk page titled "Use L.A. Times boundaries?" Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use L.A. Times boundaries?

I am suggesting that we use the Los Angeles Times neighborhood boundary for this page. The staff of the Times put a lot of effort into defining them, and they are de facto "official" now. For Downtown, go here. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The LA Times has a long history of not knowing anything about local neighborhoods, geography or boundaries. For instance, their map doesn't include Chinatown or City West, two neighborhoods that, while separated by freeways, have traditionally been included in Downtown Los Angeles (and ones I'd strongly argue are in fact part of Downtown). I'm interested to explore why the Times included the spur south of Washington Boulevard all the way to 25th Street as part of Downtown.

Another reputable source, the Downtown Center BID, includes Chinatown, City West, Crown Hill and the Figueroa Corridor, yet not Washington Blvd just south of the 10 Freeway, as the Times does. The BID also includes the spur to 25th Street. http://www.downtownla.com/0_0_dcbid_map.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alossix (talk • contribs) 23:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I think about it more, I tend to agree with you on Expo Park. It's an issue that's likely to pop up again in the future, which isn't helped by elected leaders trying to make it an extension of Downtown. Rich Alossi (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something to be said for the LA Times borders is that they do include Union Station and Olvera Street, which fall on the north side of the 101, but are considered by most folks to be integral parts of Downtown (hence Union Station's mention in this article). As I mentioned in another comment, it appears the Westlake neighborhood has claimed City West as their own, so even though the DCBID and the Downtown News claim City West falls in Downtown (which I might agree with), this still may be worthy of more discussion. Worth noting is that while Downtown LA wayfinding signs appear in Chinatown, El Pueblo, and along the Figueroa Corridor, I have yet to see one DTLA wayfinding sign in City West (at least not along 7th or Wilshire). --AlikaAlex 16:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alikaalex (talk • contribs)

Be that as it may, Wikipedia is constrained to use WP:Reliable sources, which are fairly well defined in that section. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." I don't mind using sources other than the Times as well, but where are they, and are they Reliable? GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is East Downtown?

How come there is no mention of Jewelry District, Toy District, Skid Row, Warehouse District, etc.? This article needs to encompass all of Downtown, not just focusing on the affluent areas. There is also no mention of Los Angeles's many scattered homeless residents. This lack of info makes this article read like a tourist booklet, only designed for those who want to sightsee and spend their money.

And you don't need to mention the Conservancy tours over and over again! Just say that "the conservancy offers several tours of los angeles, including..." at the beginning or end of the neighborhoods section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donkeykong3488 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes:

Write here this shows some place in Asia!

77.181.236.217 (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Geodata looks good to me. Note that the second coordinate is West, not East (which would, indeed, put it in Asia). Someone may have fixed this already, so I changed the {{geodata-check}} to {{tlc|geodata-check}}, as indicated by the template. -- PeachMomoko^{^talk} 01:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Downsize this!

It says in the area section that downtown L.A is about 8.538 km2 big. That would make it about 80k wide and 90k long. I guess that would be a decimal error?? Marco :-o Bonteburg (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. 8 *point* 5 km, right? Consider it solved.Bonteburg (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New? expanded? Grand Park

I was struck by a Marketplace PRI story on the (re)opening of Grand Park in dtla, but I have no clue where to insert it or what to call it. Is this Grand Hope park? Here's the story on Jul 27, 2012 http://www.marketplace.org/topics/life/take-walk-though-countrys-newest-urban-park plus a postscript http://www.marketplace.org/topics/life/final-note/walk-park Mulp (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's officially called Grand Park and I believe someone has added a mention of it in the article now. While Grand Park is a public park located in the Civic Center neighborhood, Grand Hope Park is a private park located in the South Park neighborhood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alikaalex (talk • contribs) 17:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

three light rail lines operated by metro

It now says two subway lines and three light rail lines operated by Metro. What's the distinction being made? Red, purple, blue, and expo are underground at 7th street at least. Blue and expo are above ground some of the time. Gold is above ground all of the time. Would it not be easier to say "five light rail lines" if that's what we're talking about?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, though a wording cleanup would be needed (as "light rail" and "subway" are probably not the best terms to use when comparing the rail lines to each other as "subways" can be either light rail or heavy rail). To avoid getting into the weeds on the transit wording, I'll try to update with some more generic wording that still expresses the intent of the text, probably using the term "rapid-transit rail lines" or similar, as that terminology could apply to both heavy and light rail. Some of the Metro station names require updating and I noticed some capitalization issues as well. I'll try to tackle shortly. Alika|Alex 16:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Pop culture

I've removed the Pop Culture section. Nothing in it was sourced, and it simply turned into a long list of originally researched information, none of it very interesting. If you want to put the pieces back again, I suggest they be re-added one just one or two at a time, with sources. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this deletion. You're doing excellent work trimming this down, by the way.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of my edit about flyaway

Why revert that? You asked for a source, I found one. You took it out and replaced it with the previously existing bad link and replaced the {{fact}} tag. What's the deal? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I didn't notice. Put it the way you want it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done! — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller areas

Sorry for the wholesale reversion. Yes, there are some smaller, notable areas within Downtown, but in my opinion it isn't enough just to say they are Notable in order to have a separate WP article about them. I've refashioned the list to begin with the L.A. Times-supported sub-neighborhoods (all of them now separately cited), and I hope the community endorses the idea that each sub-neighborhood should be deemed WP:Notable only if they are referenced by the usual WP:Reliable sources. For example, the existence of an Old Bank District, Los Angeles could be referenced by citing this story from the Downtown News. That said, I would like to see some more internal links added here. Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ambivalent in the sense that I agree that there should be sources and also that there are sources for the (currently) unlisted smaller areas. On the other hand, these were hardly controversial additions except for the fact that they weren't supported by the source they were cited to. Upshot? I don't know. Let's re-add them as sources become available, I suppose.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Central City East

From a cursory search, it seems that the term "Central City East" to refer to Skid Row is used only by a business-oriented group, hardly a WP:Reliable source. See here. Maybe the Downtown News has adopted it; I dunno. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly correct. You beat me to taking it out of the Skid Row article. First time I've had an EC making the exact same edits I was making!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bite. What's an EC? European Community? GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

It seems to me that individual businesses should not be listed for DTLA because there are so many of them. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#Economy, which really does not give much guidance but can serve as a starting point for discussion. What do others think? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wonder if the criterion for inclusion is whether the business has a Wikipedia article or not. There is a difference between a small not-famous restaurant and Wikipedia notable company and/or a branch of a large corporation. Presumably "economy" would focus on notable businesses and/or those that would appear on a Downtown Los Angeles economic report. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Downtown Los Angeles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this posting means, and I have BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Cyberbot II puts a link from the Wayback machine as "archive" on deadlinks. A human needs to check since the Wayback machine may have archived a 404 page (page not found) or other useless link. One may be able to find an earlier date on the Wayback machine when the page was still live. The new date can be cut and pasted in place of the one used by Cyberbot. This link can than tagged {{cbignore}} to keep Cyberbot from modifying it.

On this page, Cyberbot pasted in 2 working archived sources (rescued), did not flag any as dead, and asked the Wayback machine to archive 48 sources so an archived copy will be ready if they go ever dead. Fettlemap (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What are we supposed to do, and how do we do it? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the work of this bot has surprised a lot of people. It is not only finding deadlinks and adding the archive if available on the Wayback Machine, the bot is proactively having an archive created. There is a backlog as people aren't sure how to respond to this bot that asks someone to check its work.

Once you get the hang of it, the bots instructions are fairly straight forward. Bullet points mark the "Added archives," so most of the time if you click on each one, a Wayback page will come up that looks like it relates the article. At that point, the section can be edited by changing the word false to true and you are done. (That is what I did above.) One can also bail out at this point without changing anything and leave it for another editor. An editor can also click on the link in the 2nd sentence, "Please take a moment to review my edit," if they want to see the actual changes. If there are problems, the fix becomes more complicated though. Fettlemap (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Downtown Los Angeles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Downtown Los Angeles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828062613/http://aegworldwide.com/01_venues/staples_center.php to http://www.aegworldwide.com/01_venues/staples_center.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707085226/http://www.greyhound.com/home/TicketCenter/en/locations.asp?state=ca to http://www.greyhound.com/home/TicketCenter/en/locations.asp?state=ca
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090603003900/http://bringingbackbroadway.com/updates/index.htm to http://www.bringingbackbroadway.com/updates/index.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://thegrandla.com/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090425235348/http://www.ci.la.ca.us/angelswalk/5.htm to http://www.ci.la.ca.us/angelswalk/5.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207023054/http://www.lacity.org/angelswalk/32%2633.htm to http://www.lacity.org/angelswalk/32%2633.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630061811/http://lafd.org/fs3.htm to http://lafd.org/fs3.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416084854/http://www.lafd.org/fs4.htm to http://lafd.org/fs4.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630061805/http://lafd.org/fs9.htm to http://lafd.org/fs9.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121032328/http://www.lafd.org/fs10.htm to http://lafd.org/fs10.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing much since 2010 in this article

This article seems to stop before the 2010 US Census. There is just one reference to data from that Census, and no contrast between 2000 and 2010. More to the point, what has happened since 2009? Is the Historic Core coming along well, after so much money was poured into it? The organization of the article is good, the photos are excellent, but the story needs its latest chapter. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

City hall triforium.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked over there and, yes, it looks like there are too many closeups. If it were simply part of the landscape, it could be saved. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What should the geographical entities within DTLA be called?

Downtown L.A. is referred to as a neighborhood. What should the geographical subdivisions within it be called? I prefer district. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any decision on this matter might affect other Los Angeles neighborhood articles as well, by inference. Or maybe not. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a suggested edit on the page. Feel free to rv or change if something better comes to mind. // Timothy :: talk 12:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also addded the Flower District, it is technically in the Fashion District, but it has its own article, so I thought it was worth including, in the same way the Toy District is included, though its also in Skid Row. Again rv/change if a better way to include comes to mind. // Timothy :: talk 12:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will amend what I wrote above to stress that we follow the sources. If a place within DTLA is sourced as a neighborhood, then we use that. We have Historic Core neighborhood, so I believe that's OK. I haven't checked the source. Our text says: "Downtown Los Angeles is divided into neighborhoods and districts, some overlapping." I think that's just fine. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Los Angeles with Mount Baldy.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]