This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography 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.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps
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 was orphaned. Since it is useful in LA, I added it there. But if someone deletes that reference, then this article should go.Ancheta Wis 18:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Flagged POV due to heavily biased "history" section. It sounds more like an angry ex-employee writing about the demise of the company rather than an objective history.71.193.127.169 (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent TG I had (for Los Angeles) did not draw neighborhood boundaries, but it seemed to me that the labels for the neighborhoods were simply placed in the location where the neighborhood existed. Thus, I think you could use a TG for the general location of a neighborhood by identifying the streets under or near the label but could not use it for boundaries. I sometimes used the phrase "(Name of neighborhood) is centered on (streets)." Or, you could say "(Name of neighborhood) lies roughly west of Western Avenue and south of Pico Boulevard," but I think you have to hedge with "roughly." BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a guide about neighborhoods? There are so many definitions with people arguing for the right one. As with many items, it depends on the purpose: City and county planners divide the city up differently then the police. Historical districts often identify a neighborhood. Nextdoor allows the residents to decide what is their neighborhood. Editors have started using google maps for some neighborhoods, it will show a boundary (like it does for cities, counties, etc.). I wince when editors use google maps as a source since one has no idea how the algorithm decided on that particular boundary. Fettlemap (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Thomas Guide should not be used delineate boundaries. Obviously, (1) it does not mark boundaries. And (2), even a broad statement, like such-and-such neighborhood is centered on a certain street, would be problematic as illustrated by the example below:
Please view this page in the Thomas Guide [1]. Look at the placement of the name "Little Tokyo". The name is centered on Alameda Street. However, Little Tokyo is west of Alameda Street and the The Arts District is east of Alameda. The name "Little Tokyo" is clearly not centered on the correct neighborhood; it overlaps into an entirely different neighborhood.
The only use I see for a Thomas Guide citation would be something very broad, such as: Little Tokyo is a neighborhood is Los Angeles [Thomas guide citation]. Adjacent neighborhoods include Chinatown. [Thomas guide citation]. But anything more specific - such as "Little Tokyo is centered on Alameda Street" - would be guesswork. And in this case, a wrong guess.Phatblackmama (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What are we doing discussing a topic that doesn't relate to this ARTICLE in any way on this article's talk page? This RfC in its entirety is an almost definitive WP:NOTFORUM violation. You are discussing a qualitative value of the SUBJECT of the article, and the result of this discussion will not result in any change to THIS article. C'mon, people: If you had an issue with content regarding letterbombs across multiple articles, would you discuss it on the Post Office's article's talk page? John from Idegon (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](https://my-bits-of-info.000webhostapp.com/8.jpeg){kind=link}