Talk:Westside (Los Angeles County)

Uh... this doesn't really seem to be about Los Angeles at all. What about something like Beach Cities (Southern California)? It might be a good idea to check out the Bay Area (California) for ideas. Nevertheless, I added a space before the first parenthesis. -- (WT-en) Evan 21:11, 9 Nov 2003 (PST)

This area, which I currently reside in, is regulary refered to as West Los Angeles. The 'beach cities' of southern california seems like it would be way too general encompassing San Diego to Malibu. I have also places several different regions of Los Angeles as they are commonly known. Maybe I should move out the cities section, but am a little uncertain about how you would like to organize the greater Los Angeles area. (WT-en) Ron 21:17, 9 Nov 2003 (PST)

Well, I would love to distinguish between the city of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles metro region. Any suggestions? I know there's like 80 cities in the LA metro region... -- (WT-en) Evan 21:32, 9 Nov 2003 (PST)

Hmm ok, then its time to set up a LA metro region, maybe the Greater Los angeles area and break it down. The broken down regions will typically also contain some portion of the city of Los Angeles. If you settle on a name for the greater region, ill start breaking it down as i know it. (WT-en) Ron 21:39, 9 Nov 2003 (PST)

I agree, maybe it should be "Los Angeles Metro Region", or simply use the "Los Angeles" page. Then we can start making subdivisions (with slashes) and move stuff around and work it all out. (WT-en) Gjetost 14:25, 7 Dec 2003 (PST)

Gjetost: so, we had this discussion across several pages -- you might want to try navigating down from Southern California to see the hierarchy we ended up using. Talk:Southern California/Hierarchy I think ended up being the central place we brainstormed this out. --(WT-en) Evan 14:33, 7 Dec 2003 (PST)

The "west side" as a region of Los Angeles does not actually include the beaches, although I guess some people would consider Santa Monica, Venice. Thinking about how to process this. Putting back my edits.--(WT-en) Justfred 18:34, 4 October 2006 (EDT)

Restaurants

I tried to straigten up restaurants by formatting and adding headers; they were organized by ethnicity rather than by price, which in this area is probably more appropriate. I've heard of most of the places on this list, and they're all worth mentioning, I think, along with at least a dozen others I can't think of at the moment.--(WT-en) Justfred 18:26, 4 October 2006 (EDT)

Nailing down some boundaries

A first draft, with neighborhood data from Mapping L.A.

Now that the Mapping L.A. project data is available to us thanks to Peter, I say it's about time we tackle the confused mess that is the layout of this article. Going through the individual city/district articles, I've found both some overlap between different articles and some gaps in our coverage. So this is an attempt to set a solid organization down.

Alright, so using the Mapping L.A. data (adjusted for readability) and going through all the articles, I'm proposing the layout you see in the map. Each color would correspond to a different article. Malibu, Pacific Palisades, Santa Monica, Venice, and Playa del Rey are all self-explanatory. Additionally, Marina del Rey, Culver City, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, and Agoura Hills each get an adjacent neighborhood since those articles have listings that are technically in that adjacent neighborhood (for instance, Beverly Grove is surrounded by West Hollywood, and trying to draw a hard line between the two seems silly and unsuitable for a traveler's perspective). So far, pretty simple.

Now here's where we get into actually changing stuff around. Right now, Los Angeles/West covers West Los Angeles, Mar Vista, Palms, Brentwood, and Westwood - which has its own article, which baffles me since there just isn't enough content in either article to warrant splitting it off. And a pretty sloppy job was done splitting it off, since there are still Westwood listings in LA/West. Additionally, there's an article for Century City which lacks any content whatsoever, and an article for Bel-Air which has a grand total of five listings (three restaurants, one hotel, and one golf course), both of which are neighborhoods of the city of Los Angeles. Since none of these articles have enough content to really justify being split off, I propose we merge and redirect all of these into LA/West, until it covers the entirety of the light blue area on the map.

And finally, there's currently two gaps in our coverage: Westchester on the south side (home to LAX and a bunch of airport hotels), and the Santa Monica Mountains (a National Recreation Area that holds Malibu Creek State Park among its attractions) on the north. For both we could create new articles: Westchester (California) and Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area (while we're at it, we should probably merge and redirect the existing Malibu Creek State Park article into the new one to avoid content overlap).

(whew) So there it is, for a grand total of 13 articles. Thoughts? PerryPlanet (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I've had a go at the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area | (talk) article. Where would Topanga fit in this structure? It seems like the SMMNRA should be a park-centric article, but Topanga could be a little thin for a full article, especially if Westwood doesn't have one either! -- MisterCustomer (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Good question. If the map on the NPS site is anything to go by, it looks like the borders of the recreation area encompass Topanga, so the simplest thing to do might be just keep Topanga in the SMMNRA article for the time being.

On a side note, do you think it would make sense to merge the content in Malibu Creek State Park into the SMMNRA article? Looking it over now, I feel like it could be easily distilled into a long See listing (plus the SMMNRA article could poach that nifty banner). PerryPlanet (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

We've traditionally kept a logical separation between park articles and city articles, and even though SMNRA is a weird corner-case, I think it still makes sense to try to keep the SMNRA article focused on the recreation area, and create a separate Topanga article for businesses located in that city. I suspect that someone looking for a business in Topanga would be surprised to be redirected to SMNRA, and someone trying to learn more about recreation options in the park would be surprised to be redirected to a city article.

As to Malibu Creek, it's a small enough place that a merge to either Malibu or SMNRA would make sense to me. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

II think it makes the most sense to merge the state parks into the SMMNRA. I don't think the jurisdiction is as important as how they are experienced by a visitor. I would propose that Point Mugu, Malibu Creek, and Topanga State Parks stay with the parks, but the State Beaches be classified with Malibu for geographic clarity. As to the Topanga city entry, I'll at least pull those entries from SMMNRA over to that article, and the Cornell items into Agoura Hills. -- MisterCustomer (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think Agoura Hills and Westlake Village should be in this article. They are on US-101 and wholly north of Mulholland Drive/Mulholland Hwy. Anything north of Mulholland Drive or Hwy should be in the Valley article. Purplebackpack89 18:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree that they don't really mesh with what I'd consider 'Westside'. If anything, it groups with Thousand Oaks and Newbury Park, despite being in Los Angeles County. I also think there is a definite distinction between the San Fernando and Conejo valleys, perceptually. I'm open to suggestions of how to manage the dissonance between political and geographic boundaries. -- MisterCustomer (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No objection from me if Agoura Hills and Westlake Village are moved. Mapping LA has them grouped with the Santa Monica Mountains, but since we've already moved Calabasas out of that grouping it shouldn't hurt anything to move the other two as well. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. As far as I can tell, that's just an oddity of the Mapping LA data. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Count me in as an 'aye'. Just playing with solutions here, but should we use a Southern California→Conejo Valley region, like a smaller-scale Bay Area (California) grouping separate from the county groups? I mean, we're getting pretty granular here with the hierarchy in a largely suburban area, so if we want to throw in with the San Fernando Valley and be done with it, I can live with that. We also seem to be double-dipping the boundaries of Southern California and Central Coast for Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, but that's already part of a discussion on another page. -- MisterCustomer (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of not being held to arbitrary political boundaries, but I think the issue you'd run into with a Conejo Valley page is that we'd only have three cities to populate it with (Agoura Hills, Newbury Park, and Thousand Oaks), which isn't an ideal situation for a region page. Though I agree that throwing Agoura Hills in with the San Fernando Valley isn't an ideal solution either (though we do seem to be in agreement that it would at least be better there than here in Westside). What a perplexing problem... PerryPlanet (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Ventura County might work perfectly well under the rule of 7+2 with Agoura as an added-on item. What about this list (and I'll cross post on that page) - Thousand Oaks, Simi/Moorpark, Fillmore, Santa Paula, Ventura, Oxnard/Hueneme, Camarillo, Ojai, plus Agoura/Westlake. Maybe we're just trying for the perfect fit when there isn't one. What do you guys think? If we could wordsmith out a way to make it clear on the county-level page, maybe it would be worth a try. I'm not sure yet, I've got to sleep on it. -- MisterCustomer (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely zero problems with this. Even if we're fudging the truth by classifying Agoura/Westlake under Ventura County, it seems to make more sense from a traveler's perspective, and that's what really matters on this site. And if we're really worried about confusing people, we could always just, as you said, wordsmith in a note saying that while it's technically in LA County, it lies in the Conejo Valley, isolated from the rest of LA County by mountains (a nice way of saying to the counties, "Screw your rules, our system actually makes sense!" :P ). PerryPlanet (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Seems like we have the beginnings of a direction. I propose we shift future Agoura Hills discussion over the regional nuts-and-bolts to Talk:Ventura County, if there are no objections? I have a preliminary map proposal there. -- MisterCustomer (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Added Agoura Hills on the Ventura County page. -- MisterCustomer (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and take it off this page and the map. PerryPlanet (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Westside

This article was recently moved from "West Side (Los Angeles County)" to "Westside (Los Angeles County)", which appears to be correct. However, that move broke the breadcrumbs for all cities in this region so I've reverted for now. Would someone with time available be willing to update the isPartOf tags for all of the cities in Category:West Side (Los Angeles County) and then re-move this article? We'll also need to move the category once everything is done. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

All of the above changes are now done and the article has again been renamed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)