Talk:Panorama City, Los Angeles

	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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.

Panorama City, 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 moved to Panorama City, Los Angeles - see Talk:Los_Angeles#Various_move_requests_involving_LA_Neighborhoods Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama City → Panorama City, Los Angeles, California

Please consider: To align with predominant city's district/town nomenclature of 3 names; & for Spanish placename/word multiple use clarity. Thanks---Look2See1 (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/Move to Panorama City, Los Angeles if you gotta move it. We are in the process of dropping California from all Los Angeles neighborhoods, just as California was dropped from the title of the Los Angeles article some years back. Also, the Spanish placename argument makes no sense; Panorama City is not a Spanish placename and the Chilean city does not have any neighborhood articles on this Wikipedia Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Trails blazed)} 22:15, 27 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 → 22:05, 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.

Image replacement and demographic edit discussion

I have made my edits in good faith and well-intent to improve the page, and as far as I have read have violated no rules. I have mentioned my reasons being that:

1. The image I uploaded replaces a blighted, defunct theater with a commercial center for the neighborhood. If it were 50 years ago back in Panorama City's heyday, the image would be appropriate as the Panorama Theater was a lively and bright place. Today it is no longer either as it is a church of sorts and has been affected immensely by blight and graffiti. Therefore, if this structure no longer serves the purpose it was built for nor does it contribute to the changing and evolving modernity that Panorama City has gone through, then as a resident I feel a responsibility to rightfully change and replace it with an image of a center that more accurately reflects the current climate of the neighborhood.

2. My edit with the Los Angeles Times information was included in the site itself and provides more information for the neighborhood's demographics. An already included source contained the information, all I have done was expand on the section with information not previously included. My surfacing of the edit serves the purpose of informing the general public of the ancestral background of the current population, as was already being done in that section.

I have complied with the rules and regulation of this site and am well aware that this place is first and foremost an encyclopedia. By providing relevant and up-to-date information my contributions are appropriate.

ThePanorama (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)ThePanorama[reply]

It is hard to get good pictures in many suburban communities. Even though the theater picture may be dated, it is historically relevant. and identifiable to the neighborhood. The picture of "Panorama Woodman Centre along Woodman Ave" is mostly sky and parked cars. It could have been taken almost anywhere and so does not add to the page. Don't give up trying to get a good photo that represents the community. Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I will try and snap better shots of that plaza with fewer cars and feature more businesses. However, the historical relevance of the photo of the theater is lost in the picture as it is now used for a different purpose and its signage is no longer functional. I propose finding a photograph of the theater back when it was still functioning as one in order to recognize its historical significance. Also, as you said, communities should have photos that represent them. Do you suggest a balance between the historic photo and a relevant one?

Lastly, any thoughts on my edit for the demographics section?

ThePanorama (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"as a resident I feel a responsibility to rightfully change and replace it with an image of a center that more accurately reflects the current climate of the neighborhood." True enough, but you should follow the WP:Guidelines. Good luck! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What were the changes you made in the demographics? Did you have a WP:Source for them? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a better version of the same image. The theater signage is quite relevant to the History section. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank you for replying as well. Regarding my changes in the demographics section, yes, there is a source. It's the Los Angeles Times and it was already included and is responsible for the information already in that section. I was adding an additional bit of information that expands on the ancestral background of the neighborhood. There is also a word change from 'number' to 'population' as the latter is more fitting in this context. This edit was also reverted and I do not see why as it does nothing but improve the page. In the essence of this site being an encyclopedia, this edit is meaningful with the information it provides.

Also thank you for the picture, but honestly it appears to be heavily edited and retouched. Is it possible we can use the old one and crop it to appear like the photo you used? Or if another photo of the theater is taken. ThePanorama (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)ThePanorama[reply]

It's the same photo, run through Pixelmator to make it usable. Anybody can edit it. Make your editorial changes again, so we can do a WP:BRD if necesary. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BeenAroundAWhile, this is the change that I reverted. Sticking to the edit to the demographics section for a bit, The only non contentious change there was changing "number" to "population". I do not see the use in it, but am basically meh and wouldn't oppose it. However, the other change ThePanorama made was not in any way non contentious. For some reason, what he terms "more information" instead removed the phrase "Filipinos and Mexicans were the most common ancestries in the neighborhood" and substituted it with a phrase that didn't reflect Hispanic population at all. So yea, I oppose that.

I like BAAW's crop of the previous picture, and can see no reason to use the picture TP added at all. John from Idegon (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The image I added, as I've said, is to reflect the current climate of the neighborhood. I believe BeenAroundAwhile mentioned he agreed with that sentiment (as long as I follow the guidelines), just not the picture I added. Fettlemap also said that I should "[not] give up trying to get a good photo that represents the community." Thus I will take a better shot when I can.

And what you mentioned about me removing that phrase simply is not true. I do not understand why you must lie about that when the edit history makes everything transparent: that I'm the one who added that phrase about Filipinos and Mexicans being the most common ancestries, and that you removed it with your revert.

And so if I have read the comments correctly, my edits in the demographics section were misinterpreted by you. And so I will edit it.

ThePanorama (talk) 02:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)The Panorama[reply]

"Lie" is a strong word. I'd advise everybody to WP:Assume good faith. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they were. My apologies. Not as an excuse, but as an explanation, I've been in bed with a virulent strep infection all week. That is an improvement. Your argument is not going to move me, however on the photo. Pictures are not used as decorations on Wikipedia. Please argue why you want to change images based on WP:IMAGES. Be specific. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per this page, specifically in the "'Decorative' arguments" section, you should "Instead of stating baldly that the image is purely decorative, explain how it fails to help our readers understand the page." I have repeated my reasons numerous times. Two others have agreed with me. My image reflects the changing and evolving modernity that Panorama City has gone through and more accurately reflects the current climate of the neighborhood. Now, if your argument for the deletion of my picture is that it is decorative, please explain further.

ThePanorama (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)The Panorama[reply]

This is not an image deletion discussion. It's a discussion on changing the content on a page, which in this case happens to be an image. The applicable guideline is WP:IMAGES. I have no burden to convince you of anything. You want to make a change to the content of the page. That change is disputed. The burden is on you to establish a consensus for that change. Consensus is not a vote. Agreement is required, by all parties. I don't see anyone agreeing with you, but even if they did, if neither their or your arguments convince me, you still don't have a consensus. Without consensus, status quo anti is maintained. Pinging BeenAroundAWhile and Fettlemap. ThePanorama, you're going to need to show how the existing picture fails to illustrate some text in the article and how any picture you propose does. The choice doesn't have to be binary, either. You can add a picture without removing an existing one. I would, however, oppose the previously added picture as WP:ROTM. John from Idegon (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama Mall

I made a second deletion of this: "The area remains a local commercial center with Panorama Mall housing a Walmart and a Curacao discount store aimed at the Hispanic Market, and the Valley Indoor Swap Meet housed in the former Ohrbach's." The reason for my deletion is that there is simply nothing in the source given that states any of this (that I could see). BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]