Talk:Mission Hills, Los Angeles

Mission Hills, Los Angeles, California

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) 23:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Hills, Los Angeles → Mission Hills, Los Angeles, California

Please see talk pages for Reseda, Los Angeles, California, Winnetka, Los Angeles, California, & Chatsworth, Los Angeles, California. Thank you.---Look2See1 (talk) 21:55, 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. I would direct you to Talk:Angelino Heights, Los Angeles for community consensus on said move Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Trails blazed)} 22:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I wrote on another page, let's get wider input on these page moves. Individually, they have few people watching them. Will Beback talk 23:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about a centralized discussion somewhere? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:53, 28 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]

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 → 22:01, 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mission Hills, Los Angeles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141210041242/http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml to http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mission Hills, Los Angeles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111043420/http://www.laalmanac.com/population/po24la.htm to http://www.laalmanac.com/population/po24la.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]