Talk:Hollywood, Los Angeles

Sign

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? -- Zoe

The sign is copyrighted? Really? Wow. --KQ

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., -- Zoe

KQ: In Hollywood (home of MPAA and RIAA), Everything is copyrighted. :) -- Chris Mahan

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.

---

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. --LDC

Thanks, Lee, just wanted to be sure we were okay here. -- Zoe

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. --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...

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 [[1936 in literature|1936]] would be like adding a reference to George W. Bush in an article on gardening by writing [[George W. Bush's views on gardening|George W. Bush]]. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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. [[1983 in music|1983]]). 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). -- 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 Patrick rather than me, but thanks nevertheless for your answer. --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. -- 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. --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 [[2003 in film|2003]], 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. - 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? --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. --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... -- 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? -R. S. Shaw 21:28, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

That would be great. 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.--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? -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. --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. -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. -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? --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? -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 Brentwoods 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 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 uncommon name! Nobody refers to it like that. And if that page redirects to Hollywood, what's the problem? --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. --Coolcaesar 00:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you concur with Willmcw or with me? --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. -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!

The basis for the name of this page is an alleged convention. There is a vote on whether the [[City, State]] and [[Neighborhood, City, State]] 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) --Serge 06:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

(vote whether to move this page from Hollywood, Los Angeles, California back to Hollywood, which is currently a redirect to this page)

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)

Voting

• Support. Jibbajabba 19:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Serge 19:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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. 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 [[City, State]] naming convention for cities, much less any consensus for the completely non-standard [[Neighborhood, City, State]] format that results in ridiculous looking article names like Hollywood, Los Angeles, California. --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. --Serge 19:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)