The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved - see also Talk:Los_Angeles#Various_move_requests_involving_LA_Neighborhoods  Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 23:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Warner Center, Los Angeles → Warner Center, Los Angeles, California

Hi Purplebackpack89; Please consider: To align with predominant city's district/town nomenclature of 3 names; & for Spanish placename/word multiple use clarity. Also please consider one nomenclature system for all the neighborhoods, districts, and 'towns' within L.A. city limits would be easier with all editors knowing one template. As is now will have to search each one to enter link correctly in an article edit. If majority wants no Calif. it's certainly fine then, but a mixed system is hard for many. Would you consider stopping redoing until clarified please? Thanks--- Look2See1 ( talk) 22:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Strong oppose/Request speedy closure User has offered no reasoning for move. The name of the city is Los Angeles, not Los Angeles, California; therefore the name of the article should be Chatsworth, Los Angeles, not Chatsworth, Los Angeles, California. Many neighborhoods in other cities, in and out of the United States, do not contain state names, including quite a few neighborhoods in Los Angeles now. In a few days, almost all the articles will be NEIGHBORHOOD, Los Angeles; per some movereqs of my own that you're more than welcome to contribute to. The reason you're having trouble finding them is that you blanked the redirects. In addition, please refrain from directing comments at me on articlespace, confine them to my talk page Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Trails blazed)} 22:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - I agree. Unless there is a disambiguation problem, "neighhborhood, Los Angeles" is sufficient. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 07:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply
• Oppose No reason to move-- Jkfp2004 ( talk) 19:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Neutral: While understanding a larger view now than when posting the 'movereq' above; I agree with User:Will Beback that a precedet setting decision for one of the world's largest city's deserves wider discussion and input. My posting the 'movereq' was due to lack of 'discussion width', leaving me unaware of changes (considered and done) even though very active with L.A. Districts' articles. Personally I do not find using the word 'notorious' and L.A. together by some 'change advocates' positive or a npov backup.

More transparency before further changes, with notification and 'auto-forwarding' of 'old 3 names' titles (in both article links and new searches) could avoid difficult startles. The Reseda, Los Angeles, California (OR Reseda, Los Angeles ?? eg: the 'crap shoot' problem for now...) has discussion on talk page of neighborhood vs. district vs. census-designated place (CDP). If the change is inevitable perhaps doing so in district name alphabetical order would take out random 'crap shoot' searching now (or explaining another system being used). Thank you- Look2See1  t a l k → 22:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.