Talk:West Hollywood, California: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:10, 26 February 2009

Template:West Hollywood article poster Template:WBLA

California Unassessed

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies B‑class

	LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Events

The events section should probably go above the landmarks section. It should probably also include Pride, and AIDS Walk.Kaibab 08:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the largest and earliest gay pride parades and festivals in the US, the West Hollywood celebration probably deserves it's own article as well. I wish that I could remember where I read a fairly recent description of the early history of the parade—maybe the LA Weekly. BlankVerse 09:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

90069 zip code

While it is funny that part of West Hollywood has a zip code of 90069, it's not really that unsurprising, given the close proximity of the 90068 (Hollywood Hills) and 90067 (Century City) zip codes. Part of the "gay village" area on Santa Monica Boulevard is in the 90046 zip code as well, by the way.

The zip codes were assigned when WeHo was an unincorporated part of L.A. County, so they all overlap into Los Angeles. In fact, the Postal Service does not officially recognize West Hollywood as a place! Originally, they refused to deliver mail that was addressed to WeHo instead of L.A., but bowed under community pressure.

Landmarks

Neither the Beverly Center nor the Hard Rock is in West Hollywood, so why are they in this article?66.215.75.10 05:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far nobody has supplied an explanation, so I'm editing them out. Moksharamana 04:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WeHo?!

I live in West Los Angeles, and am in West Hollywood very often (that's where all the good music is, of course). I read this article, and had to ask everyone I know whether they had ever called or even heard of anyone call West Hollywood "WeHo." Never. North Hollywood is sometimes called "NoHo," but West Hollywood is never called WeHo, not even in a comical sense. Ever. I'm fixing this in the article. Any comments? -Kingurth 07:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the City of West Hollywood website. The preferred address is WeHo.org.

WEHO Continued...

I live in LA County and I've heard people use the term "WEHO" repeatedly...both comically and as a shortened version a la NOHO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leodios (talk • contribs) 08:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Contradiction

"All of West Hollywood is zoned to Fairfax High School; some areas are jointly zoned to Fairfax High School and Hollywood High School."

How can all of weho be zoned to Fairfax High and also jointly zoned to Fairfax High and Hollywood High?

I read it to mean that in some areas of West Hollywood, the lucky residents can choose between attending Fairfax or Hollywood High School, their choice. Is this correct? Sccosel (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weho

i live in weho. the use of weho for west hollywood is extremely common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.0.127 (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV - the intent of ordinances

An unregistered user (much like myself) has made the below change. With my emphasis:

Residents of the City vote overwhelmingly Democratic, and regularly pass ordinances geared toward reducing perceived discrimination, and protecting the public health and dignity of all living things at the cost of individual liberty.

I think it's pretty hard to read that as anything but an attempt to inject the author's suspicion of such measures into the description of what I at least can imagine to be legitimate aims of ordinances - whether we agree with them or not. I was quite tempted to remove it immediately but I welcome consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.86.41 (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV label in Politics section

I will go ahead and remove the POV lable in the politics section because there is no explanation for it in the talk page. I perceive that the POV label had been placed on the politics section because West Hollywood passed a lot of ordinances. So, the POV label is more on disagreeing with the POV of the city rather than the POV of the section in the article. Of course, the article saying that the city is a frontrunner in social justice legislation could be POV, but that seems more like a cheerleading issue rather than an issue on a particular POV since social justice encompasses the ordinances mentioned in the article. EECavazos (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rearrange sections

This article is on a city so the nut and bolts of the city should be arranged first in the article such as geography, education, and politics because that relates more to the information in the introduction of the article. Then the history section should go in for background and then finish off with events and pet friendly. I'll give that a try and then give it a look-see if you think that works. EECavazos (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]