A fact from National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 May 2008, and was viewed approximately 2,419 times ( disclaimer) ( check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the City of Los Angeles has 186 sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/May.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: Los Angeles / Southern California 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Mid-importance). National Register of Historic Places List‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles List This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"List of Registered Historic Places in the City of Angels" for now. Could change to "in the city of Los Angeles" or "in Los Angeles" or "in Los Angeles (city)". Please discuss.

City of Angels is WAY too poetic. Just "in Los Angeles" is fine... -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 05:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

FYI, partly i wanted to avoid it sounding too much like List of Registered Historic Places in Los Angeles County, California. I am asking for other comments on this name, at WT:NRHP. doncram ( talk) 05:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Consensus against it being "City of Angels", so moved to "Los Angeles". doncram ( talk) 19:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The NRHP talk page has been archived, so I'll put this here: Should the name of the article not be changed to List of Registered Historic Places in Los Angeles, California. This changed name would be less likely to be confused with List of Registered Historic Places in Los Angeles County, California. Wikipedia has been changing all city categories to include the state name. clariosophic ( talk) 06:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, since both the county and city are in California, i don't think it particularly helps distinguish between them, to add the comma California. Perhaps, "List of Registered Historic Places in the City of Los Angeles". Or, better, "List of Registered Historic Places in the City of Angels"? I like that best. :) doncram ( talk) 08:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I started this just now as a list-table to cover just the NRHPs in the city of Los Angeles. I would like to add some intro text and put it up for DYK, along the lines of "did you know that the City of Los Angeles has 123(or whatever) sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places".

For now, I am leaving off a Description/Summary column, until the DYK happens or the DYK deadline goes by, because it would be impossible to fill it all out. doncram ( talk) 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Several people are helping out, thanks! The intro text is now 875 characters long, still short relative to 1500 characters required for DYK. I am not sure whether characters in the table count, though this is obviously a massive endeavor.

Intro text up to 1300 characters, and climbing. Should be okay.

Intro text over 1600 characters. Currently there are 72 images! Some from pre-existing articles, many brand new or just identified from HABS. Amazing for a brand new list-article. It was time to get this created.... doncram ( talk) 19:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I am assigning this list-article Start rating because, although it includes many red-links, it is already a comprehensive listing of the RHPs in the City of Angels. Some more may be added, as we uncover which neighborhoods listed by NRIS are in fact within City of LA boundaries. But that will only make the list even more comprehensive. :) doncram ( talk) 01:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Currently the rows number from 1 to 430, with many skipped. That was created out of an NRIS extract using Elkman's generator, that gathered up all 430 NRHPs in LA County. It will be renumbered (i am guessing up to about 125) when names of sites are verified and ordering is stable. doncram ( talk) 21:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Reordered somewhat, and completely renumbered, 1 to 186 now.

Photos and/or photo uploads are needed.

• HABS or HAER photos may be available. Search HABS/HAER here
• New photos would be helpful.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in California may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Shouldn't Olvera Street be listed here? Murderbike ( talk) 03:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

One would think so, but that does not seem to be listed in the National Register. Perhaps it has been renovated and revised so much over the years, that it is not authentic enough? We should figure out how to get the documents for the City of LA landmarking of that site, and at least explain why it is not deemed NRHP-worthy. doncram ( talk) 05:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm pretty sure Los Angeles Plaza Historic District includes Olvera Street. Cbl62 ( talk) 05:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I added a column to receive short summaries or descriptions of the RHPs. I'd like for these to be done as with, say, List of NHLs in NY, where the descriptions are short statements that are drawn from the corresponding articles. I prefer for there to be no new information in the description that is not covered in the corresponding article, because if there are exceptions then footnotes/sourcing of this list-article comes under question. I prefer for the sourcing to be in the corresponding articles.

The purpose is to provide an interesting factoid or two for each site, so that readers can decide if they want to read the corresponding article. It is not possible or necessary to explain the full significance, the reason for NRHP listing, for each site, as sometimes those reasons are complex. However, many descriptions may succinctly provide the reason a site is significant (e.g. for its association with the life of an important person, or for its architecture).

Formatting-wise, the descriptions can be sentence fragments, perhaps multiple ones joined by semi-colons, with no period ending them. Or, they can be complete sentences ending in periods. That's how i would proceed, anyhow. It can develop any which way though, and be edited for consistency at the point when this list-article is ready for Peer Review or eventually Featured List review. doncram ( talk) 23:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply

This is great. Thanks to the editors for creating and improving this list , and for coordinating the articles about the places themselves. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply

There are a bunch whose neighborhood is merely identified as "Los Angeles", because it was

One of these is the Mary Andrews Clark Memorial Home. As noted in its talk page, I think should be listed at 306 Loma Dr, not S. Loma Drive. But it's not clear to me by the Los Angeles neighborhoods wall-map which neighborhood it is in, perhaps it is Pico-Union neighborhood? But, is there a Pico-Union, Los Angeles, California neighbhorhood article? Is that a defined neighborhood, according to whom? doncram ( talk) 21:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hmm, there is an article about the Pico Union, but it says the neighborhood is bordered by Olympic on the north. Mary Clark home is further north. Perhaps, by the wall-map, it is in the Westlake, Los Angeles, California neighborhood? doncram ( talk) 21:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Seems to be Westlake. Weird that i have never heard of that neighborhood. Have labelled it as being in Westlake neighborhood now. doncram ( talk) 21:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Another is John C. Fremont Branch of the Los Angeles library system, built in 1927. I edited its article and List of RHPs in L.A. to state it is in Hollywood area, but by the Los Angeles neighborhoods wall map perhaps it should be in Greater Mid-Wilshire / Hancock Park instead? doncram ( talk) 21:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The image File:S.S. Catalina.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC) reply

That place on De Longepre where Bukowski lived "from 1960 to 1973" is now an official Los Angeles cultural landmark: they recently, finally put the sign in front of the place. It reads "Bukowski Court". Will 'Bukowski Court" be included in this list? The sign went up since the last time I checked, I suppose it went up in January or February 2009. A from L.A. ( talk) 03:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Recently a locator map for Los Angeles has been created. Placing "| locmapin = Los Angeles" in the NRHP infobox now displays a map of only the city of Los Angeles (instead of the whole state of California). I began going through the articles in this list but only got to the 15th item before I realized that editing 200 articles was going to take all day haha (I have a Mac, so I can't use AWB). I hoped that by doing 15, some editor would see his/her watchlist lighting up and join in.. Anyone want to update the rest of the articles? -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 22:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey, i know i have edited some of those first 15 but i didn't notice the hits on my watchlist. I'll run AWB to change from "locmapin = California" to "locmapin = Los Angeles" later. Thanks so much for making the Los Angeles map available and/or for telling us how to use it. It is way better! -- doncram ( talk) 14:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC) reply

On a computer where i have AWB running well, it is in fact easy to do. Several lists need to be addressed. I just did National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles County, California, in a few passes of AWB searching on variations of string "locmapin = California". This LA city NRHP list needs to be done. The several pages of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural monuments need to be done, too. I will try to get to all of these over the next few days. Thanks again! -- doncram ( talk) 15:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Has this building (#175) been torn down? I checked the LA Times and Google News archives and found no reference to it being demolished but in this aerial view from Bing Maps, it's gone (unless you zoom in and then it re-appears). http://www.bing.com/maps/explore/?org=aj#/2kxk01ckobkcgbbc Michaelcarraher ( talk) 15:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply

As with other California NRHP list-articles, an editor has been making many changes, including changes specifically discussed in general formatting discussions. I reverted an edit just now which implemented some good, some contested changes, and hereby call for discussion. I'll watch here but it may be more efficient to discuss along with others at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Marin County, California. I offer/agree to re-implement the good changes later, after some resolution about contested changes. The editor knows or should know what some of those are. There's at least one change discussed to consensus differently than implemented here. -- doncram ( talk) 01:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Many of the changes in Nyttend's edit that i later reverted have now been implemented, such as unwrapping comma-convoluted names, per discussion below in "Library" section.

There are other changes in Nyttend's edit were also good changes regarding what is displayed, in my view. I would have to check a bit more, but the 500 Varas change for example seemed to be towards displaying the NRHP name of place, which is appropriate for this NRHP list (although the article name may be appropriately different, and be connected by pipelink or by redirect).

However, Nyttend's edit removed good info, specifically my own clarification a long time ago that for the S.S. Catalina the coordinates are the former coordinates. That ship for many years came back and forth to that ferry terminal location underneath a bridge, in its long-running ferry service to Catalina Island. But the ship is gone and in fact demolished. I believe it is useful to still show the location, but in the linked Google map it should be identified as a former location.

I also agree partly with a change by Nyttend, to make the ship name formatting conform among the 3 ship items, which was inconsistent. But I prefer to follow consensus and use italics rather than all caps for the two that were all caps, rather than convert the one italics one to all caps, per general consensus of other discussions on this topic. -- doncram ( talk) 20:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I edited the table column widths to match the examples of National Register of Historic Places listings in Santa Cruz County, California and National Register of Historic Places listings in New Haven, Connecticut, which are pretty well-formatted. I also removed the outmoded use of '<font size="95%">' tags, which had been an attempt to control column width. - Colfer2 ( talk) 01:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks! Those were among the changes that Nyttend's edit, discussed also above, was implementing. Thanks for helping to sort out these changes. -- doncram ( talk) 20:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I regularized the many branch library names. There were three forms, as in these examples:

1. John C. Fremont Branch
2. Dana, Richard Henry, Branch: Note reversal of first and last names.
3. Eagle Rock Branch Library: Note use of "Library" in the name.

I changed all to the first form. I like the last form fine also. I do not think the second form is helpful. The literal listings in the NRHP database may be formed that way, but I think it is more an artifact than a fact. Somewhat like the capitalized ship names. Using the common names for the libraries does not cause any confusion or ambiguities. Modern searching techniques overcome word order, thankfully, and sorting our list by name is not really a way to find historic people. - Colfer2 ( talk) 02:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for 'splaining. Actually, this Los Angeles list-article was set up by me and others very early on, and later practice / decisions were generally as you seem to choose. Generally the NRHP lists follow the National Register's naming of places in the NRIS database, but with some formatting changes, including to unwrap names convoluted with commas, for use in article names and for display in NRHP list-articles. So i agree with your library name display changes. The only exception would be for Eagle Rock Branch Library, where "Library" is part of the NRIS name, and I would prefer that it be kept.

Also in your next edit i see you kept the display of NRHP names the same, while pipelinking rather than using redirect to get to actual article names. I'm indifferent on that; it really makes no difference. Thanks for discussing. -- doncram ( talk) 05:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC) reply

FWIW, I too prefer that the names displayed in the table match the names in the NPS NRIS database (with the exception of name wrapping and all caps for ship names). This way there's no ambiguity about whether the site in the Wikipedia table is one and the same as the site in the NRIS database. Note that I am not saying that Wikipedia article names about the sites should necessarily have the NRIS names. In accordance with standard WP guidelines, articles should be named based on current common usage. Where the article name differs from the NRIS name, pipe links should be used in the NRHP list article (e.g. [[Eagle Rock Community Cultural Center|Eagle Rock Branch Library]]). I'm also indifferent about redirects vs pipe links, although in practice, I tend to use pipe links rather than setting up redirects. Anyways ... thanks for your efforts, Colfer, and for your willingness to discuss your edits. -- sanfranman59 ( talk) 17:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I changed "Eagle Rock Branch" back to "Eagle Rock Branch Library". I'd like them all to say "Library", but it's not a big deal. Glad the name reversals are gone! - Colfer2 ( talk) 18:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Broadly, too, I'd like for their names to actually all include "Library", as in I would prefer for the National Register to change their names that way. But for wikipedia, I prefer for us to follow the National Register names closely (with exception for the comma-unwrapping and maybe a few other exceptions). A way forward would be to write to the National Register, or really to the relevant California State Office and try to get them to change these names. I and others do collect correction information for reporting at wp:NRIS info issues CA. I wouldn't call this an actual error in naming on their part though, so I am not hopeful that they would change the names, so I would not even pursue it, really. On actual outright errors in naming, I do fully intend to keep following up with them. -- doncram ( talk) 20:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Should not the S.S. Catalina be moved to the "former listings" section? It was, after all, scrapped in Mexico two years ago.-- 172.191.172.111 ( talk) 06:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC) reply

This is a photo finding aid only - not necessarily complete or accurate

There was a long-outdated table consisting of all rows from the article's table which lacked photos, at one point in time, here. I just deleted it as not helpful. -- Doncram ( talk) 19:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 06:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Register of Historic Places listings in 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/20080518112858/http://www.laalmanac.com/LA/lamap2.htm to http://www.laalmanac.com/LA/lamap2.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC) reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• ATSF 3751 19920000 IL Streator.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply

This list is awfully long, and should be split, probably into three or four sections. Magic ♪piano 19:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

How would you split it? For example, split it along the lines of the local register designations? Spin off DTLA and the Valley? Tell me more p b p 17:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm in agreeance with splitting the article. However, as Purplebackpack89 stated, consensus would depend on the manner in which to split the article that makes the most sense. I, personally, propose splitting the article "by decade" of addition to the NRHP (e.g. 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s, etc.). AbeautyfulMess06 ( talk) 20:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC) reply

NRHP lists in other areas have been split by geography, which is probably a more useful breakdown than by listing date. See e.g. National Register of Historic Places listings in Denver or National Register of Historic Places listings in Boston, among many others. If there are well-defined neighborhood boundaries, those can be used. Failing that, lists are typically split along major roadways. The split also needs to account for the distribution of sites, so that none of the sub-lists ends being too long. I would suggest splitting this list into three or four sub-lists, with a goal length of 60-100 entries each. Magic ♪piano 14:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Here's a rough draft for a four-way geographic split:

• "southern LA": bounded on the north by I-10 (about 80 listings)
• "northern LA": bounded on the south by US-101 (west of downtown) and I-10 (east of downtown): about 50 listings
• "western LA": bounded on the north by US-101, the east by CA-110, and the south by I-10: about 80 listings

alternatively, bound between northern and western could be Mulholland Drive, which perhaps more appropriately puts a few San Fernando Valley listings in the northern bucket

• "downtown LA": bounded I-10, US-101, CA-110: about 35 listings

This scheme has the advantage of being easy to explain. Magic ♪piano 19:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply

What is "easy to explain" depends on your knowledge and what you assume readers will understand; I happen to think all the highway names of 0's and 1's are very confusing, even for Los Angeles area residents who know their own areas but not all of the region. And "downtown LA" does not conform to what I would understand as downtown Los Angeles, at all. And "northern LA" and "southern LA" and "western LA" appear to be terms being coined here, that are not otherwise recognized. In other attempts to divide geographic areas, such as my own tries to reorganize Texas and West Virginia lists of NRHPs into meaningful areas in the past, sentiment ran against using any partition into areas not extremely clearly well known; people would not agree to use an official Texas historic area partition or an official West Virginia state tourism areas partition. So using newly coined terms here seems against the trend.

Please take a look at how List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments (which should have been linked from this list-article already) is divided, into nine geographical areas with meaningful names such as "Downtown Los Angeles" and "Hollywood" and "San Fernando Valley" and "South Los Angeles" and "Harbor area". Since there are fewer NRHP sites than LAHCM ones, some pairs of areas could possibly be combined, e.g. "Hollywood and San Fernando Valley". I haven't just now reviewed how "Downtown Los Angeles" is defined exactly in the LAHCM list-system, but I think/hope it does meaningfully related to the actual area known as that. User:Cbl62 and User:Colfer2 might have been involved in the process of dividing LAHCMs. For proposed changes like here, notice should be given pretty widely to Los Angeles and California wikiprojects and Talk pages of major articles like "Los Angeles" and "Lost Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments".

-- Doncram ( talk) 19:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• My suggestion would be to split off as little as possible and limit the splitting to discrete areas. I suggest leaving the core of historic Los Angeles intact in this article and simply split off two of the outlying areas that later accreted to the city. The two areas I would split are the "San Fernando Valley" (Chatsworth, Encino, Mission Hills, North Hollywood, Tujunga, Valley Glen, Van Nuys) and the Harbor Area (San Pedro and Wilmington), both of which are clearly defined and geographically distinct from the city core. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm opposed to doing a minimal split, because they're a bit of a pain to do, and removing a modest number of entries now means repeating at least part of the process later. For perspective: the San Pedro/Wilmington area has about 15 listings, and the San Fernando Valley about 35. Removing these leaves this list with nearly 200 entries, not really addressing the issue.

Addressing Doncram's complaint about my neologisms and ease of explanation: I actually lived in LA many years ago, albeit for just two years, so I am not naive about its geography. I also knew that I was coining terms (as has happened elsewhere), but my proposal was just that: a proposal. Both of you make some valid points that may be fruitful. I am amenable to any reasonable boundaries, as long as they satisfy a few criteria:

• no sublist is longer than 150 entries
• the division of sublists is easy to explain to people unfamiliar with LA's geography, and acceptable to those who are
• it is easy to tell, given a street address/geolocation, into which sublist a listing should be placed

The latter is for me a sticky point, because in some cities where lists were divided, it can be hard (read: IMHO unnecessarily time-consuming) to determine which sublist a new listing belongs into. I am one of the editors who regularly adds new listings, and this issue is why I dread adding them to Jefferson County, Kentucky.

In particular, it means that a division by neighborhood or regions needs to have clear boundaries that are readily ascertainable, preferably by description in the intro to the list. If Cbl62 or someone else wants to propose a division by neighborhoods or regions like The Valley, I'm more than happy to examine the scheme for usability and determine about how many listings fall into each bin.

If there is consensus, I can do this for a breakdown along the (exact) same lines as that of the LAHCM lists, which would bring a measure of consistency between these lists and those. Magic ♪piano 22:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Magicpiano: I am pretty sure I was responsible for the overly-fragmented nature of the LA Historical Cultural Monument lists and am not a fan in retrospect. If there is a true need for further division, then the next-best alternative IMO would be to have four lists covering (1) the San Fernando Valley (Mulholland Drive is the clear dividing line between the Valley and the City), (2) South Los Angeles (south of Washington Boulevard, except that all of Venice should be maintained as part of "West"), (3) West Los Angeles (west from Fairfax Avenue, north from Washington Boulevard (with the Venice caveat), and south of Mulholland Drive), and (4) Central Los Angeles (the city's historic core). Would that solve things for you? Cbl62 ( talk) 23:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply

In Cbl62's four-way split, three NRHPs in West Hollywood are split away from the rest of Hollywood, while they are not split away in the LAHCM "Hollywood" list. Dividing on north-south La Cienega Boulevard rather than on Fairfax Ave would rejoin them, and also bring an isolated one, El Greco Apartments over, which is good too. Coming north from the airport La Cienega runs continuously all the way up and is better known; it is Fairfax that splits off. La Cienega is more major and bigger and more historic-sounding and more historic in fact, and would make a better dividing line IMO. I spent time in between those avenues and considered west LA to be west of La Cienega. It seems unnatural to me to split by Fairfax what I feel are continuous neighborhoods, e.g. it would split the relatively homogeneous Beverly-Fairfax area (which has La Cienega on west, Fairfax running up middle, La Brea Boulevard on east [did i mean La Brea Ave or Highland Ave, i dunno-- Doncram ( talk) 18:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)). Beverly-Fairfax is explained in the Fairfax District article. Dividing by Fairfax would split the area served by the Fairfax high school, would split the area served by Farmers Market (Los Angeles) and by The Grove at Farmers Market, and indeed would split the area served by Fairfax Avenue which is more of a neighborhood feeder avenue than a highway. Either the Fairfax Avenue article or the Fairfax District article notes that Fairfax is narrow and congested, which is what I recall. While La Cienega is wider and more highway-like all the way up from the airport, and even coming along the Beverly Center and the Cedars-Sinai Hospital, and it divides that homogenous Beverly-Fairfax area to its east from different stuff (as in city of Beverly Hills) to the west. Westside (Los Angeles County) article suggests La Cienega, not Fairfax, as one of a few candidate dividing lines. I see that the Fairfax Avenue article includes a claim that Fairfax is the divider to the Westside, but I don't agree and that contradicts the Westside's article. -- Doncram ( talk) 02:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

In my 30 or so years living in LA, I always understood Fairfax to be the commonly accepted demarcation line for the west side. As you note, our own article on Fairfax Avenue asserts "it separates the Westside from the central part of the city." Likewise, West Hollywood is part of the west side. Cbl62 ( talk) 02:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Well, in 2008, about 12 years ago, User:Cbl62 created List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments on the Westside entirely to the west of La Cienega, e.g. this 2008 version. Of LAHCMs between La Cienega and Fairfax, one (on w side of Fairfax itself) was put into List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in the Wilshire and Westlake areas, six were put in List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in Hollywood, presumably including the three NRHP ones. (Two of the six are north and a bit west of the end of La Cienega, actually, but close enough. [Those are in Hollywood Hills West, which is in Central LA not Westside, per LA Times.-- Doncram ( talk) 19:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)) By the way, List of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments in South Los Angeles has none between, but has one to west of La Cienega which should be moved to Westside list I think. Over any long period the border understood by anyone could migrate i suppose. We shouldn't bow to anyone's asserted credentials as an "expert", but FWIW my experience was right there on both west and east of Fairfax, while Cbl62's tenure though much longer than mine has not been located right there, as far as I know, but sure I would tend to want to defer to Cbl162. But better, we should rely upon reliable sources such as Los Angeles Times, as in its clear delineation of South Los Angeles used for that article. I'm not looking for who put assertion into Fairfax Avenue article that it is the border, but it appears unsourced. Cbl62 has always had good access to LAT archives; could you possibly please find the most on-topic LAT articles (hopefully historical and recent) that define a border of the Westside? -- Doncram ( talk) 18:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Actually what LAT says most substantially is probably in its Mapping L.A. project from 2009 on; the article is about LAT's view and also competing view of an Eric Brightwell. I can't see the map in that article's 2017 Tim Loc-authored source, but it includes Eric Brightwell's understated comment that understandings, even on a very local level, are "fluid". CBl62, can u see the LAT's actual maps from that project?-- Doncram ( talk) 18:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

LA Times resulting maps are online, including for Westside here, showing east border to be border of City of Beverly Hills in the relevant area, which is all a few blocks west of La Cienega, and is roughly consistent with my understanding. Google map of City of Beverly Hills shows it's entirely west of La Cienega except for small bulge along San Vincente Blvd., not reaching over to Fairfax, probably with no LAHCMs or NRHPs. Also the LA Times shows Ladera Heights spanning La Brea Blvd, but that is south of where Fairfax splits off. Also City of West Hollywood is entirely in Central LA not Westside, per that, consistent with my understanding too. So it seems to me Westside border is approximately La Cienega, and either La Cienega or LATimes' view of Westside border should be used here. :) -- Doncram ( talk) 19:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

This is a rough breakdown of Cbl62's proposed 4-way split:

• "San Fernando Valley": this area would have about 10 listings (it excludes about 40 from my "northern LA" list that are located between the 101 and I-10 freeways north of downtown).
• "Westside LA": this area would have 30-40 listings (it excludes 50+ from my "western LA" list that are between Fairfax and 101 freeway, and includes about 10 from the Venice Beach/Marina Del Mar/airport area I had put in the "southern LA" list)
• "South LA": this area would have about 70 listings
• "Central LA": this area would have about 125 listings

If the Westside-Central boundary is moved to La Cienega from Fairfax, something like four listings move from Westside to Central.

I'm basically OK with this breakdown either way, but have observations on naming:

• there is a region called South Los Angeles that appears by most definitions not to include the San Pedro/Wilmington area or the neck to it, which this breakdown does; this suggests our list name should be something else (why I went with "southern LA")
• Westside Los Angeles gives various demarcations for the eastern boundary of that area, none of which is Fairfax Ave.
• I'd recommend retaining this list as a catchall for areas not separately broken out, leaving the "Central LA" listings here

-- Magic ♪piano 16:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't believe it should be split at all. It's ONE CITY, after all, and I believe everybody should see all the historical places in ONE PLACE. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 05:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply

New York City is also ONE CITY, and its listings are split up, because long lists are unwieldy even to look at. What's your point? Magic ♪piano 14:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC) reply