Jump to content

Talk:Hollywood, Los Angeles: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(479 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{move|Hollywood}}
{{talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
==Sign==
{{WikiProject California|importance=High|southerncalifornia=yes|southerncalifornia-importance=High|la=yes|la-importance=High}}
Question about the Hollywood sign: The sign is copyrighted. Even if it's a photo taken by a private individual, is its use here okay? -- [[User:Zoe|Zoe]]
{{WikiProject Cities}}
:The ''sign'' is copyrighted? Really? Wow. [[User:Koyaanis Qatsi|--KQ]]
{{WikiProject Urban studies and planning|importance=high}}
::Yes, the copyright owners (which I think is the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce) are the only ones allowed to legally use it on T-shirts, etc., etc., -- [[User:Zoe|Zoe]]
{{WikiProject Architecture|importance=high}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(180d)
| archive = Talk:Hollywood, Los Angeles/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 2
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}


== Requested move 26 March 2022 ==
::: KQ: In Hollywood (home of [[MPAA]] and [[RIAA]]), Everything is copyrighted. :) -- [[User:Christopher Mahan|Chris Mahan]]
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->

:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''
::::What about persay... The [[Coca-Cola]] logo? That's copyrighted and yet we stick a picture up. I believe a photo of the sign is fine.


The result of the move request was: '''Not moved'''. The previous discussion ended a week ago. If you wish to challenge it, [[WP:MR]] is the venue. {{RMpmc}} [[User talk:Calidum|<span style="color:#01796F; font-family:serif">'''''Calidum'''''</span>]] 01:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
----
----
People can ''claim'' copyright to anything they want.
That doesn't mean their claim holds any water.
It might also be possible that the Hollywood CoC has a valid
''trademark'' claim to commercial uses of the sign.
That has nothing to do with copyright, and while that too is a
pretty dubious claim, it's a bit more reasonable.
At any rate, if some resident takes his camera down there and
snaps a photo for us and uploads it here, we can use it without
any legal impediments at all; anything anyone tells you to the
contary is utter nonsense. --[[User:Lee Daniel Crocker|LDC]]

:Thanks, Lee, just wanted to be sure we were okay here. -- [[User:Zoe|Zoe]]

:[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty Here's a intresting discussion of this very issue.]

----
==history==
From the page history:

(cur) (last) . . 07:50 6 Jul 2003 . . Oliver Pereira (No - years that are linked should link to the year pages. I'm sure we have a policy on this.)

(cur) (last) . . 07:42 6 Jul 2003 . . Patrick (when mentioning a year for literatue a link to the year in literature is more meaningful than to the year in general; for film similar; therefore restored)

(cur) (last) . . 04:31 6 Jul 2003 . . Oliver Pereira (fix opening paragraph; remove hidden links to "year in literature" pages; other minor changes)

This looks like a miniature edit war. Rather than changing the links again, I'd like you to consider the following:

(1) If we aimed at uniformity (either way) here, we'd have to change thousands of links.

(2) It is rather clumsy to have something like ''Book Title'' ([[1888]]) (see also [[1888 in literature]]).

(3) Those links directly to the literature/film pages are not "hidden". That's what we have the "|" for.

(4) '''It does not matter.''' Users can click on from the literature page to the general year page and vice versa.

(5) I '''don't''' think we have a policy on this.

Personally, I'd agree with Patrick here. --[[User:KF|KF]] 09:51 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. I wouldn't call it a ''war''; my last edit left the "year in literature" links in (in an unhidden form), even though I don't think they were necessary. That was a compromise. But to address your points...
# Yes. But this isn't much of an argument. Hundreds (thousands?) of edits are made to the Wikipedia every day anyway, and ''millions'' more will be made over the next few years, so a few thousand more are neither here nor there. :) Uniformity of links is good - it makes it easier to navigate the encyclopaedia, and avoids frustrating the users by sending them where they are not expecting to go.
# I agree. I personally wouldn't include links to "year in literature" pages except in pages about literature, and I only left them in this page to avoid an edit war. Now that I think about it further, it seems obvious to me that the links shouldn't be there at all. The "year in literature" pages will show how the books ''Laughing Gas'' and ''What Makes Sammy Run?'' fit into the context of the literature of that time. But this article isn't about literature. It's about a place in California. So the context here is geography, not literature. How those two books fit into the history of literature is utterly irrelevant to an article about a place.
# I don't follow you here. We have the pipe ("|") to hide the title of the article, replacing it with some alternative text, yes? This is often useful, for example in linking to disambiguated pages like [[Blah (movie)]]. We rarely want the parenthetical bit to appear in the article, so we hide it, using the pipe. The "year in literature" pages are not disambiguated year pages. 1936 in literature is not a different usage of the term "1936"; it's a page about a particular aspect of that year. Adding a reference to a year by writing <nowiki>[[1936 in literature|1936]]</nowiki> would be like adding a reference to George W. Bush in an article on gardening by writing <nowiki>[[George W. Bush's views on gardening|George W. Bush]]</nowiki>. No-one would be expecting to get to an article on George W. Bush's views on gardening by clicking on his name. It's exactly the same situation here.
# When you say it doesn't matter, all you mean is that you personally aren't bothered by it. But other people are. Therefore it matters. I find it frustrating to click on a link expecting to go to one place, and ending up at another.
# Actually, we do! This has come up before, in connection with the "year in music" pages. [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)]] said, until an edit I made to it yesterday,

:: ''Do not use piped links to "years in music" (''e.g.'' <nowiki>[[1983 in music|1983]]</nowiki>). See [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject Music standards]].''

: I believe that it only referred to the "years in music" pages because they were the first "year in..." pages to arise. But I see no reason to think they might be a special case, which is why I added the phrase "or analogous pages" to the rule yesterday. If you want to change the policy, I expect the best place to bring it up would be at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)]]. -- [[User:Oliver Pereira|Oliver P.]] 04:22 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

::I've written a short note there ([[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)]]) inviting others to join in. Personally, I don't want to change our policy because, as I have already pointed out, in this particular case I don't consider it frustrating at all to be redirected to the literature/music pages. Anyway, you should probably be discussing this with [[User:Patrick|Patrick]] rather than me, but thanks nevertheless for your answer. --[[User:KF|KF]] 05:02 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

::: Thanks for the reply. But I think you mean that you ''do'' want a change in the policy, since as I pointed out above, the piped "year in literature" links are contrary to our current policy! As for my message, well, it's an open letter, and intended for anyone who wants to read it, not just you. I've notifed Patrick about the discussion on his talk page. -- [[User:Oliver Pereira|Oliver P.]] 07:31 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hm. Why is this thread here? Well anyway I just wanted to say that Oliver is 100% right and I still ''very strongly'' feel that piped "year in topic" pages are evil. They are ''only'' daughter articles and should therefore rarely be linked directly -- but the year articles should all have prominent links to them and there is nothing wrong with the (see [year in topic]) syntax for the minority of times when a direct link is desireable. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]

::Given that there are year-in-x articles, e.g. [[2003 in film]], I think that, e.g., all films released in 2003 and mentioned in an article (and in particular an article on such a film) should link to it.

::This facilitates adding the film to the list if it is not there yet, and checking for consistency.

::The link should not suggest that more info on the film can be found by following it. To avoid the [[piped link]] <nowiki>[[2003 in film|2003]]</nowiki>, in [[Gerry (film)]] I used "'''Gerry''' is a [[2003 film]]" with that redirecting to [[2003 in film]]. Similarly we could have [[2003 play]], [[2003 book]], etc. - [[User:Patrick|Patrick]] 21:34 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

:::I ''really'' like that idea! --mav


:It's fascinating how easily you can get caught up in a debate and be labelled the villain :) even if all you have said is that you don't care. Am I considered the opponent here who is <shudder>100% wrong</shudder> or what? Also, who decides? Has there been a final word on this? --[[User:KF|KF]] 08:06 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

::No reason to be defensive. I was just supporting Oliver and the current convention. --mav

:::Okay, I'll be offensive from now on. Now seriously, I don't like the [[ad hominem]] approach. And as I really don't mind. I'll always link to the year pages in future. But I'd still be interested in other people's opinions. --[[User:KF|KF]] 08:37 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No, no. Nobody is attacking you. Sorry if that's how it appeared. We were just attacking the piped "year in topic" pages, which isn't the same thing at all. :) It would be ''ad hominem'' if we said, "You're wrong, because you're an idiot!" or something like that, but no-one's saying that! Oh, and as for who decides, I think the answer is that it is decided by "consensus", although this probably doesn't always work very well... And there's never a final word; we can always change our minds later. There are only a small number of things that are set in stone, like being a wiki, being an encyclopaedia, and having a "neutral point of view" policy. Pretty much everything else can be changed if there is a consensus to do so... -- [[User:Oliver Pereira|Oliver P.]] 08:58 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

== "Herb Albert" should be "Herb Alpert" ==

The link on the Hollywood page to "Herb Albert" spells that individual's last name incorrectly: it is actually Alpert. See http://www.tijuanabrass.com/ for a discography. I corrected it on the page, but that correction now breaks the link to the as-yet contentless "Herb Albert" page and produces a 404 error. Unfortunately, I lack the skills or the permission or both to correct that problem, but I hope someone will follow up. Cheers, Paul

== What about a map? ==

Anyone else think it would be good to have a map of L.A. or So. Cal. showing in red where the Hollywood district is? -[[User:R. S. Shaw|R. S. Shaw]] 21:28, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

:That would be great. [[User:Funnyhat|Funnyhat]] 05:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

== Jackson Browne song? ==

I was under the impression that the song was about a boulevard in New York, not about [[Hollywood Boulevard]]. It seems to make more sense that way but I guess it could be either. Can anyone confirm? I don't think those lyrics should be here.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 19:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Haivng these lyrics in this section makes more sense than having the Burt Bacharach lyrics, and makes more sense then one of those lists - "___ in popular culture." As for the song - there used to be a little coffee shop called the "Golden Cup" on Hollywood. According to a book I once read about runaways in Hollywood, it was a hangout for hustlers working the neighboring Selma Blvd. The book specifically quoted the song as applying to Hollywood Blvd, but I don't recall if the author asked Browne about it. Which boulevard in NY did you think it applied to? Was there a Golden Cup there too? -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 21:30, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

::I don't go to NY much but I remember someone telling me this years ago. Same "Dirty Boulevard" Lou Reed sang about; I have no idea which it is. I don't know the Golden Cup but presumably it was in Hollywood years before I got here. --[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 21:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::The book was published in the early 70s, if I recall correctly, with an introduction from some congressman from Ohio who was interested in juvenile delinquency. I can't find it now. I do recall the Golden Cup, which looked benign in the daylight. It was probably closed by the 80s, certainly by the 90s. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 22:05, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

== Hollywood - not a sovereign city ==

Wouldn't this article be more rightly named 'Hollywood, Los Angeles, California', as it is a district and not a city unto itself? If someone with rename priviliges would like to correct this, I would highly encourage it.

:I agree. That is the standard naming convention. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 07:31, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

::I do not believe that the claim that ''district, city, state'' is a '''standard naming convention''' is accurate. At best, I believe it is an undocumented and informal convention imposed on Wiki by a handful of contributors without any discussion. If I'm wrong, please correct me and point to the documentation of this convention (prior to the Hollywood rename) and discussion of convention prior to that. Just because Hollywood is not a city does not mean it should not be listed as [[Hollywood]] (my preference) or [[Hollywood, California]]. '''The name of every Wiki article should reflect ''common usage'' as much as possible, period.''' Yes, the convention for city names is ''city, state'', but that's because that is common usage for cities! But where does it say that ''place, state'' necessarily implies that ''place'' is an incorporated city, so that ''place, state'' can only be used for actual cities? What about all the unincorporated areas of every state? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 23:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

:::[[Hollywood, Florida]] has just as much right to the name as this Hollywood. As for the use of "district, city, state", how else should we handle [[Brentwood, California]] and [[Brentwood, Los Angeles, California]]? What is the problem with ahndling places in this manner? -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 23:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

::::Hollywood (in L.A.) is known for being [[Hollywood]]. On the other hand, the lesser notoriety and greater chance of confusion among the [[Brentwood]]s argues for [[Brentwood]] to be a disambiguation page, which it is. The overriding ''standard'' (as opposed to a contrived convention) here is the [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)|Wikipedia naming convention for common names]]. I don't have a problem with the ''city, state'' and ''neighborhood, city, state'' conventions as defaults, but in the case of well-known places, be they cities, neighborhoods or whatever, I think the question from the Common Name page should guide us:

::::: "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?"

:::: With respect to [[New York City]], [[Chicago]], [[Paris]], [[San Francisco]], [[Tokyo]], [[Manhattan]], [[Hollywood]], etc., places whose notoriety is well known, they should get the respective page title. I mean [[Hollywood, Los Angeles, California]]? Talk about an '''un'''common name! ''Nobody'' refers to it like that. And if that page redirects to [[Hollywood]], what's the problem? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 23:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

::::I concur, for the reasons raised above and which I am also discussing separately on the main naming conventions talk page. --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] 00:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

:::::Do you concur with [[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] or with me? --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 23:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

May I also add into evidence these, [[:Category:Oklahoma City neighborhoods]], [[:Category:Cincinnati neighborhoods]], as indications of why standards are needed. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 00:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

== Name Change Please!? ==

I Agree, This Articles Title Should Be Hollywood, Los Angeles, California. Just Like All the Other Districts/Neighborhoods in Los Angeles.


== Vote on city naming convention! ==


* [[:Hollywood, Los Angeles]] → {{no redirect|Hollywood}}
The basis for the name of this page is an alleged convention. '''There is a vote''' on whether the <nowiki>[[City, State]]</nowiki> and <nowiki>[[Neighborhood, City, State]]</nowiki> conventions should apply in a case where there is no ambiguity issue, such as in [[Hollywood]]. You would be voting essentially on whether the name of this page and all other unambiguous neighborhoods should remain something like [[Hollywood, Los Angeles, California]], or be changed to the common name of the place, like [[Hollywood]] (but only if the name is unambiguous). Vote here: [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names)]] --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 06:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
* [[:Hollywood]] → {{no redirect|Hollywood (disambiguation)}}
– Previous discussion was a major change made with insufficient notice or discussion. The name Hollywood is a shorthand reference for the Los Angeles neighborhood and for the U.S. film industry headquartered there. The change made earlier should be reversed. --[[User:evrik|evrik]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:evrik|talk]])</sup> <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 19:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)</small>
*'''Oppose''' there was quite clear consensus for the RM which was open for over 11 days to move given as noted there are over 100 other uses. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 20:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Support second move only''' - [[Hollywood]] should redirect to '''[[Cinema of the United States]]''' [[User:Red Slash|<span style="color:#FF4131;">Red</span>]] [[User talk:Red Slash|<b><span style="color:#460121;">Slash</span></b>]] 20:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' —&nbsp;there was a pretty clear consensus for this in the above Requested Move discussion. <small>[[User:Paintspot|Paintspot Infez]] ([[User talk:Paintspot|talk]])</small> 21:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per previous consensus. [[User:Mannysoloway|Mannysoloway]] ([[User talk:Mannysoloway|talk]]) 23:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Previous move was fine. --[[User:Coolcaesar|Coolcaesar]] ([[User talk:Coolcaesar|talk]]) 00:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
* '''Request Procedural Close''' There's no rationale presented for a move (a move review would be at MRV, but don't bother with that either); this can be closed. [[User:力]] (powera, [[User talk:力|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/力|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 02:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
*:There would likely be no grounds for a move review and since this doesn't bring up much more than already mentioned I indeed think we can just speedy close this but I won't do that as I'm involved and 1 editor has suggested Cinema of the United States should be primary but this now looks like SNOW. '''[[User:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Green">Crouch, Swale</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Crouch, Swale|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]) 21:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' and SNOW close. OP's reasoning is flawed - adequate notice was given and participation was ample to gain a consensus. In fact, OP's 2nd sentence rightly points out that "Hollywood" has at least two major meanings, which justifies having the disambiguation page at primary. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 04:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Requested move ==
== First studio ==
I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hollywood,_Los_Angeles&diff=1113485055&oldid=1112621217 have] removed some sources that were not real sources and corrected the text. I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cinema_of_the_United_States&diff=1113297370&oldid=1110933342 done] something similar at [[Hollywood]]. I don't know enough about the subject to know: Was [[Nestor Film Company]] really the first studio here? That article itself says it was ''not''. I'm also going to mention this on Talk:Hollywood so everyone will see it. [[User:Invasive Spices|Invasive Spices]] ([[User talk:Invasive Spices#top|talk]]) 1 October 2022 (UTC)
(vote whether to move this page from '''Hollywood, Los Angeles, California''' back to '''Hollywood''', which is currently a redirect to this page)


== Hollywood Stars of the Pacific Coast League ==
I think everyone will agree that this fits the naming conventions policy of being flexible in cases where it's an indisputable and instantly recognizable name. The current name sounds contrived and fake. Jibbajabba 19:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


Really? Nothing about the Hollywood Stars of the PCL baseball league? Why not? [[Special:Contributions/2601:283:8301:820:0:0:0:9BBB|2601:283:8301:820:0:0:0:9BBB]] ([[User talk:2601:283:8301:820:0:0:0:9BBB|talk]]) 05:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
===Voting===


==Wiki Education assignment: STS 1010==
*'''Support'''. [[User:Jibbajabba|Jibbajabba]] 19:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Clemson_University/STS_1010_(Spring_2023) | assignments = [[User:Sem2024|Sem2024]] | reviewers = [[User:Amcsparkplug|Amcsparkplug]], [[User:Cbrow25|Cbrow25]] | start_date = 2023-01-11 | end_date = 2023-05-05 }}
*'''Support'''. [[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 19:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:Jessicacariello|Jessicacariello]] ([[User talk:Jessicacariello|talk]]) 14:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)</span>
===Discussion===
*As I stated on the request page, I think it's pretty clear this is a case of an unambiguous, unique name that does not need a contrivance such as the one it has now. [[User:Jibbajabba|Jibbajabba]] 19:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
*The ongoing vote and debate regarding U.S. city names indicates there is no consensus on even the <nowiki>[[City, State]]</nowiki> naming convention for cities, much less any consensus for the completely non-standard <nowiki>[[Neighborhood, City, State]]</nowiki> format that results in ridiculous looking article names like '''Hollywood, Los Angeles, California'''. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 19:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
*Also, the fact that the [[Hollywood]] page points directly to this page and is not a disambiguation page indicates that there are no significant ambiguity conflicts. The minor ones are dealt with at the top of this page per Wiki policy. --[[User:Serge Issakov|Serge]] 19:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:31, 18 July 2024

Requested move 26 March 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The previous discussion ended a week ago. If you wish to challenge it, WP:MR is the venue. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 01:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


– Previous discussion was a major change made with insufficient notice or discussion. The name Hollywood is a shorthand reference for the Los Angeles neighborhood and for the U.S. film industry headquartered there. The change made earlier should be reversed. --evrik (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First studio

[edit]

I have removed some sources that were not real sources and corrected the text. I have done something similar at Hollywood. I don't know enough about the subject to know: Was Nestor Film Company really the first studio here? That article itself says it was not. I'm also going to mention this on Talk:Hollywood so everyone will see it. Invasive Spices (talk) 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Hollywood Stars of the Pacific Coast League

[edit]

Really? Nothing about the Hollywood Stars of the PCL baseball league? Why not? 2601:283:8301:820:0:0:0:9BBB (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: STS 1010

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sem2024 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Amcsparkplug, Cbrow25.

— Assignment last updated by Jessicacariello (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hollywood,_Los_Angeles&oldid=1235289648"