InternetArchiveBot (talk | contribs) Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot (v1.2.6) |
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WPCities}}, {{WikiProject California}}. Tag: |
||
(46 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
{{ |
{{WikiProject Cities|unref=no}} |
||
{{WikiProject California |
{{WikiProject California|importance=Mid|unref=no|southerncalifornia=yes|southerncalifornia-importance=High|la=yes|la-importance=High}} |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{archive basics|counter=6}} |
|||
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Beverly Hills, California/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}} |
|||
{{Archives}} |
|||
== "Coat of Arms"? == |
|||
== [[Beverly Hills Chihuahua]] movies in IPC section == |
|||
Do we actually have a source that identifies the familiar Beverly Hills sign as it's official [[coat of arms]]? That seems odd. The image is sourced to the BH official website, but I could find nothing indicating it has the status of a coat of arms. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beverly_Hills,_California&diff=596500394&oldid=596495283 this] diff. The question is whether the [[Beverly Hills Chihuahua]] movies belong in the IPC section. I think not, unless some kind of reliable source can be found to say that these movies have some special significance that increases understanding of the city. It seems incredibly unlikely to me that (a) they do have such significance and (b) that there is such a source. There are hundreds of movies that can go in if this one does, all of them trivial with respect to understanding the city of Beverly Hills. Thoughts?— [[User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah|alf laylah wa laylah]] ([[User_talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah|talk]]) 15:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:It's actually referred to as a "shield," and I invite you to make the textual change 'cause I don't know how to do it. See https://www.newspapers.com/image/192597188/?terms=Beverly%20Hills%20Shield&match=1. Thanks. [[User:BeenAroundAWhile|BeenAroundAWhile]] ([[User talk:BeenAroundAWhile|talk]]) 21:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
: The movies in that series all revolve around the people, attitudes, stereotypes, and start and conclude in, Beverly Hills. The IPC section is about just that "In Popular Culture" - not just an understanding of the city - but: "For example, a city's article may mention films, books or television series in which the city is itself a prominent setting" (From [[Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content#Content]]); and this movie brings the city and it's impact in popular culture to light in a comedic way. There is nothing objectionable about adding it to the list. I agree that perhaps just the first in the series might possibly be considered "trivial with respect to understanding the city of Beverly Hills", but the series as a whole is fine. That is why I "fixed with a refinement" from the original editors contribution. The movie series does in a "modern" way the same as the Beverly Hillbillies TV series did.--[[User:Notwillywanka|Notwillywanka]] ([[User talk:Notwillywanka|talk]]) 00:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::{{tl|help}} - Whoever knows how: pls change the caption under what is not a coat of arms to read "Shield". |
|||
:::I thought this would be easy but I am also unable to figure it out. I did rename the file over at Commons, the field it is under in the infobox was already "image_shield" so I'm fairly baffled. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{done}} I figured it out by looking at the infobox documentation. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 00:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Please Update == |
|||
::Yep, and right below that it says {{xt| If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources.}} That's all I'm asking for here. Otherwise we have only your opinion that this series of movies is relevant in any way whatsoever to Beverly Hills.— [[User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah|alf laylah wa laylah]] ([[User_talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah|talk]]) 01:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::Um..You are reading much further in, and applying the quote to a different paragraph and situation. The city of "Beverly Hills, California" is featured prominently in the series of movies in question. The references to "Beverly Hills, California" are "plainly verified by primary sources". There is no question as to "the significance of the reference", the series of movies take place in, and are about characters from the city. There is no inference drawn it's clearly stated in the movie, including the title, that the fictional characters are modeled after people from Beverly Hills - the guideline clearly states: "When fictional characters are modeled after other people or characters, they should be included when the connection is identified in the primary source or attributed by a secondary source". On a side note the movie it self is now referenced in popular culture, an example of "Art imitating Life imitating Art". So when the City (and it's "reputations"), has been featured in popular culture - in the movies in question, and then the movies them selves are featured in popular culture - in print comparing real life to the movie (using it's title for example)... If I was advocating for examples of [[Beverly Hills Chihuahua]] in popular culture, then I would gladly bring some references, as they are "just passing mentions": [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julia-orr/beverly-hills-chihuahua-streets-of-la_b_4675056.html here], and [http://www.wetpaint.com/real-housewives-of-beverly-hills/articles/2014-01-30-spoofed-chihuahuas-hilarious-parody-rhobh here]. However none are needed. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Notwillywanka|Notwillywanka]] ([[User talk:Notwillywanka|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Notwillywanka|contribs]]) 03:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::::I'm not sure what you mean exactly. The point is that there are hundreds of movies filmed in Beverly Hills. If we're going to put them in this section, there ought to be some criteria for doing so. The IPC essay gives reasonable guidelines for doing this: If secondary sources say that the work in question has something significant to teach people about the subject of the article it should go in. Obviously there's no question as to whether these chihuahua movies are about Beverly Hills. The question is why anyone should care. For instance, people write whole doctoral dissertations on what Blade Runner says about cultural conceptions of Los Angeles. That is a significant work regarding Los Angeles and popular culture. The same thing happens with the work of Raymond Chandler and Los Angeles. On the other hand, we can't list every movie that's shot in Los Angeles, because that's just most of them, including about 98% of the pornography produced in this country. It's insignificant with regard to the subject of the cities involved. If these chihuahua movies have something to teach our readers about Beverly Hills, it shouldn't be so hard to find a source that says they do, which is what the IPC essay suggests, rightly I think, that we do.— [[User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah|alf laylah wa laylah]] ([[User_talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah|talk]]) 04:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:Things only belong the "in popular culture" sections if there are secondary sources that describe them as being relevant to the understanding of the topic as represented in popular culture. Various guidelines that attempt to contradict that violate [[WP:OR]], a policy.—[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 04:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC) |
|||
==Image caption clarified== |
|||
For obvious reasons, I tried to clarify the image caption under The Beverly Hills Hotel where only a newer part of the building shows clearly. This was reverted w/o explanation. I am reverting again and asking for an explanation here. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 21:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Robert Wunderlich is no longer the incumbent mayor. The incumbent is now Lili Bosse. Please update! Thank you. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/130.126.255.159|130.126.255.159]] ([[User talk:130.126.255.159#top|talk]]) 15:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Requested move 4 January 2016 == |
|||
:{{done}} Got fixed at some point. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 21:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|||
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[WP:requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section. '' |
|||
== Beverly Hills == |
|||
The result of the move request was: '''not moved'''. Consensus is that this is an article about a city in the United States, and therefore should follow the [[WP:USPLACE]] guideline for cities. <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> [[User talk:SSTflyer|<span style="color:olive">sst</span>]][[User:SSTflyer|<span style="color:black">✈</span>]] 08:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
This entire story is so inaccurate i dont where to start. Beverly hills began when burton green couldnt buy a house in Hancock Park (because he was Jewish). It was called Beverly Hills because his wife’s name was Beverly. Hence, beverly blvd. beverly drive. Burton avenue. There were no race restrictions. Only that each home be 1 acre in size north of wilshire boulevard. The south was reserved for the working class. Their child “dolly green” was an equestrian. Yes. He did build the Beverly Hills hotel. It burned to the ground and was rebuilt. This is why wikipedia doesnt work when it comes to facts. [[Special:Contributions/190.218.230.250|190.218.230.250]] ([[User talk:190.218.230.250|talk]]) 21:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
:The content in the ''History'' section of this article is [[WP:RS|reliably sourced]], while none of your claims are. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">[[User:General Ization|<span style="color: #006633;">General <i>Ization</i></span>]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:General Ization|<i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i>]] </sup> 21:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:By the way, [[:Burton E. Green]]'s wife was named Lillian, not Beverly, and the [[:Beverly Hills Hotel]] never burned down. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">[[User:General Ization|<span style="color: #006633;">General <i>Ization</i></span>]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:General Ization|<i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i>]] </sup> 21:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Broken article == |
|||
I do not know what has happened, I didn't cause it but I came across this article and it appears to be broken. I am not a skilled enough editor to attempt to fix it, so perhaps this message can get to someone more qualified to fix it (as said before I did not break it, I found it this way.) [[User:Wikieditor6942021|Wikieditor6942021]] ([[User talk:Wikieditor6942021|talk]]) 12:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC) |
|||
[[:Beverly Hills, California]] → {{no redirect|Beverly Hills}} – Longstanding recognition in popular culture as just "Beverly Hills" particularly with television shows, songs, and movies such as ''[[The Beverly Hillbillies]]'', ''[[Beverly Hills, 90210]]'', ''[[Beverly Hills Teens]]'', ''[[The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills]]'', and ''[[Beverly Hills Cop (franchise)|Beverly Hills Cop]]'', ''[[Beverly Hills Ninja]]'', ''[[Beverly Hills Chihuahua]]'', ''[[Beverly Hills, 90210 (soundtrack)]]'', ''[[Beverly Hills Bordello]]'', ''[[Beverly Hills (song)]]'', ''[[Down and Out in Beverly Hills]]'' and other related places and institutions such as [[Beverly Hills Oil Field]], ''[[The Beverly Hills Courier]]'', [[Beverly Hills Unified School District]], [[The Peninsula Beverly Hills]],[[Beverly Hills Post Office]], [[The Beverly Hilton]]. Per [[WP:USPLACE]]: "Articles on populated places in the United States are ''typically'' titled<nowiki> [[Placename, State]] or [[Placename, Territory]]"</nowiki>. Requested move for [[WP:CONSISTENCY]] in naming with associated articles. Edit: We have all of these articles with just "Beverly Hills" in their title, but the actual page of Beverly Hills on the wiki is somehow called "Beverly Hills, California." What gives?--[[User:Prisencolin|Prisencolin]] ([[User talk:Prisencolin|talk]]) 22:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:I disagree. I think it should stay here.[[User:Zigzig20s|Zigzig20s]] ([[User talk:Zigzig20s|talk]]) 23:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Any particular reason? We do this for Well known cities such as [[Los Angeles]] [[New York City]], [[Boston]], [[Chicago]], etc. what makes this any different?--[[Special:Contributions/65.94.253.160|65.94.253.160]] ([[User talk:65.94.253.160|talk]]) 03:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::The most famous song about New York was [[Theme from New York, New York|New York, New York]], so I'm not sure the pop culture argument is totally valid. Also, [[Beverly Hills, New South Wales]] has about a quarter the population of the one in California. I think the state should be kept, but you make a good point. [[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 03:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::I think New York is a bad example of this because there's a legitimate argument that the City of New York could be at the title of just New York, also that particular song/movie title better fits the song lyrics. The city in NSW has a quarter of the population but I'm guessing not not even 1/100th the cultural impact of the US city.--[[User:Prisencolin|Prisencolin]] ([[User talk:Prisencolin|talk]]) 18:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::: [[Los Angeles]], [[New York City]], [[Boston]], and [[Chicago]] fall under the so-called AP Stylebook exemption of [[WP:USPLACE]]: "Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier in newspaper articles have their articles named [[City]] unless they are not the primary or only topic for that name". Beverly Hills does not fall under this. [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] ([[User talk:Zzyzx11|talk]]) 07:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The five boroughs of New York, [[Brooklyn]], [[Manhattan]], [[Queens]], [[The Bronx]], and [[Staten Island]], don't either, whereas anything written with the AP Stylebook in mind would suffixed with ", New York". My understanding is that this came from another concensus.--[[User:Prisencolin|Prisencolin]] ([[User talk:Prisencolin|talk]]) 22:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The five boroughs aren't separately incorporated cities from New York. That might have something to do with it. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:Ivanvector#top|talk]]) 22:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Also they're often referred simply by just their name, much like Beverly Hills is.--[[User:Prisencolin|Prisencolin]] ([[User talk:Prisencolin|talk]]) 23:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' CONSISTENCY would use [[WP:USPLACE]], which is the current name. Your rationale uses two different reasons, one (popculture) which is for your request, the other (CONSISTENCY) which is against your request -- [[Special:Contributions/70.51.44.60|70.51.44.60]] ([[User talk:70.51.44.60|talk]]) 04:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''. [[WP:CONSISTENCY]] would use the [[WP:USPLACE]] guidelines and maintaining the current name with the state modifier, as 'similar articles' would be articles on populated places in the United States, not other pop culture articles (Per WP:CONSISTENCY: "Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles". And WP:USPLACE is on one of those topic-specific naming conventions guidelines). And as per the WP:USPLACE guideline, cities listed in the AP Stylebook are the only ones that do not require the state modifier; Beverly Hills is not one of them. For more information on the [[WP:USPLACE]] guidelines, see the fourth question on [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/FAQ]] and [[WP:PERENNIAL#Remove state from US placenames|WP:PERENNIAL]]. [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] ([[User talk:Zzyzx11|talk]]) 07:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per [[WP:USPLACE]]. '''[[User:kennethaw88|kennethaw88]]''' • [[User talk:kennethaw88|talk]] 15:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per [[WP:USPLACE]]. [[User:RGloucester|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:12pt;color:#000000">RGloucester </span>]] — [[User talk:RGloucester|☎]] 16:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' per [[WP:COMMONSENSE]]. And USPLACE must die an agonizing death (which, of course, is a subject for discussion on that talk page, not here).—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)]] • ([[User talk:Ezhiki|yo?]]); <span class="nowrap">January 5, 2016</span>; 17:24 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per [[WP:USPLACE]], it must be formatted as ''City, State''. [[User:Zarcadia|Zarcadia]] ([[User talk:Zarcadia|talk]]) 17:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
**US:PLACE doesn't say it "must" be formatted as ''City, State'', it just says that most US cities are. Do you have any rationale for your argument beyond this?--[[User:Prisencolin|Prisencolin]] ([[User talk:Prisencolin|talk]]) 18:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' I suffer a lot from [[Chicago|inconsistency]] after [[Dallas|inconsistency]] after [[Los Angeles|inconsistency]] after [[New Orleans|inconsistency]] after [[Atlanta|inconsistency]] after [[Seattle|inconsistency]] after [[San Francisco|inconsistency]], because all of our inconsistencies are what make Wikipedia something far less than a respectable encylopaedia and something much more like [[kindergarten]]. It would be nice if, some decade, Wikipedia could be recognized as a valuable source, not as something which most people still can't quite figure out what it is at all ("Oh, that's where anybody can just go in and change stuff, isn't it?"). Some sort of effort in establishing consistency as a strict general rule would help tremendously. In this case, at least as many readers know this city as Beverly Hills as know Minneapolis as just plain Minneapolis etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc - world without end, Amen(?). <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SergeWoodzing|contribs]]) 18:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|||
*Regarding the points about inconsistency, there are only about 30 cities that do not follow the comma convention, which are explicitly listed at USPLACE. The remaining thousands and thousands of cities do follow the comma convention, so claiming consistency in this case would in fact support the status quo. '''[[User:kennethaw88|kennethaw88]]''' • [[User talk:kennethaw88|talk]] 19:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
**In an alternative interpretation of [[WP:CONSISTENCY]], renaming the page as just "Beverly Hills" would make the title consistent with other Beverly Hills related articles on Wikipedia, such as the various media products described above.--[[User:Prisencolin|Prisencolin]] ([[User talk:Prisencolin|talk]]) 00:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*** Making articles consistent with pop culture and other media topics and articles, rather than similar to articles within its own core topic, is probably not a valid one. When WP:CONSISTENCY says "''similar'' articles' titles", and referencing the [[Template:Naming conventions|topic-specific naming conventions on article titles]], it is primarily referring to articles within the same core topic. At its core, [[Beverly Hills, California]] is a U.S. city article, not a pop culture or media-topic article, so it should be consistent with other U.S city articles (in this case the USPLACE guidelines). [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] ([[User talk:Zzyzx11|talk]]) 13:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per Zzyzx11. AP maintains a list of cities which do not require the state in datelines ([http://writingexplained.org/ap-style/ap-style-datelines here, probably not official]); Beverly Hills is not listed. In fact, the link gives Beverly Hills as a specific example of a city which ''does'' require the state. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:Ivanvector#top|talk]]) 20:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
**According to writingexplained.com's [http://writingexplained.org/about about page] doesn't look like the website originates from the AP itself.--[[User:Prisencolin|Prisencolin]] ([[User talk:Prisencolin|talk]]) 22:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
***Ivanvector did state that the link was "probably not official". The AP Stylebook is more of an [[Wikipedia:Offline sources|offline source]], but you can see it in various articles on the AP's websites like [http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ddda54a2680042c3af2065d077f8c4c8/dennis-quaid-stars-auction-house-drama-art-more this one], where the dateline at the beginning of the text reads with "BEVERLY HILLS, Calif.", not merely "Beverly Hills". [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] ([[User talk:Zzyzx11|talk]]) 13:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
****Well doesn't that suggest that the page ought to be moved to Beverly Hills, Calif. then? Obviously not, but the point is that English style guidelines arent immediately applicable to that of Wikipedia.--[[User:Prisencolin|Prisencolin]] ([[User talk:Prisencolin|talk]]) 19:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' for consistency and per USPLACE. I don't agree with the guideline, but if there is going to be a change to it, it should be discussed and done wholesale, rather than through piecemeal moves like this. --Regards, [[User:James Allison|James]](<sup>[[User talk:James Allison|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/James Allison|contribs]]</sub>) 18:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
**What? This is a [[WP:IAR]] type move, I don't think a wholesale moving should be necessary to move this single page. --[[User:Prisencolin|Prisencolin]] ([[User talk:Prisencolin|talk]]) 20:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per WP:USPLACE, which is itself supported by the [[WP:Reliable sources]] rule; we title our articles about cities as is done by most newspapers, which follow the AP stylebook. Another reason: stability ([[Wikipedia:Article titles#Considering title changes|"If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed."]]; this article has been continuously titled "Beverly Hills, California" since its creation in 2002.) Finally, "[[Beverly Hills]]" is already a redirect to this article, so nothing would be gained by retitling it. Note that this same proposal was made here at this very page in September-October 2012, see [[Talk:Beverly Hills, California/Archives/2012#Requested move]]. The result was "No move". [[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 02:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
**[[WP:CONCISE|Titling conciseness]] and [[WP:COMMONNAME|a reflection of what the subject is actually called]] would be gained with the move. In other words I'm requesting the move to show show that the city is commonly referred to by just "Beverly Hills" as seen in many films and television show as well as reliable print sources.--[[User:Prisencolin|Prisencolin]] ([[User talk:Prisencolin|talk]]) 02:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' This, again? It has been established that arguing on this small issue here, multiplied by 50,000 other articles, is wasteful of editors attention. I and most others want a simple, reasonable policy/rule instead. That is wp:us place. [[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 04:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom --> |
|||
:Thanks for posting this notice. Cheers, [[User:Fettlemap|Fettlemap]] ([[User talk:Fettlemap|talk]]) 12:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Affluent == |
|||
We have developed some disagreement over the use of the word "affluent" in the lead sentence. Let's quit reverting each other and discuss it here. Those who want it provide sources, and point out that virtually everyone describes the community as affluent (we could provide a dozen sources). Those who don't want it say that there has been a decision elsewhere at Wikipedia not to use words like this in describing cities. {{ping|John from Idegon}} could you explain here, as you explained to me, why you are removing this word? {{ping|James Allison}} could you join the discussion? --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 17:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Per [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#Request for comment|this RfC]], use of economic status indicating adjectives (specifically: Affluent, poor) is depreciated. "There is rough consensus against the inclusion of terms such as "affluent" or "poor" in ledes to articles on cities and towns in general. " |
|||
:My reasoning: |
|||
#Affluent has no specific meaning, no defined metric upon which to measure it and is subjective. What it means to you it might not mean to me. I cannot see how it is any different than "Awesome" as a modifier, except that we are obviously talking about financial things when we say affluent. No one would question the labeling of "Awesome" as [[WP:PUFFERY|PUFFERY]]. As I said, I see no real difference. |
|||
#On the metrics: Probably the most common metric for affluence is median household income. Modal income would probably be better. Probably an even better metric would be modal home value. But still rich to me and rich to you are never going to be the same thing. |
|||
#Altho logic dictates that there are far more poor communities in the world than affluent, the word affluent is used much more frequently in article ledes. This lends credence to the puffery argument. It also takes me to my next point. |
|||
#Many of the additions of affluent that I have seen and reverted over the years appear to have been added as a marketing point. This is a real concern in many areas on Wikipedia. We are slowly getting taken over by the SEO crowd. |
|||
#Lastly, {{ping|James Allison}}, you stated in an edit summary that if any community is affluent it is Beverly Hills. I think you may be surprised if you research either median household income or median home value. I do not have the time right now, but I am pretty sure BH isn't even in the top 5 for either....probably not in the top ten either. Yet another puffery based argument. [[User:John from Idegon|John from Idegon]] ([[User talk:John from Idegon|talk]]) 19:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::John, I will defer to the result of the RfC and leave it out. However, I disagree with your points 1 and 2. It would not be up to us to decide whether a community is "affluent" or not based on metrics; that would be [[WP:OR]]. Our job as encyclopedists is to reflect what independent reliable sources say. If many truly independent sources use the term "affluent" to describe a community, particularly if they frequently use it as a primary descriptor, that would be our cue to include it in our primary descriptor as well. Examples: [http://www.reuters.com/article/bankruptcy-venoco-idUSL2N18A01O] [http://www.ibtimes.com/inside-radical-plan-launch-fleet-self-driving-shuttles-beverly-hills-2370349] [http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-wealthy-cities-lag-in-conservation-20150404-story.html] As I said, I will defer to the RfC, but IMO that is the ONLY reason for omitting it; there really are solid, policy-based reasons why it has been there for so long. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 20:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::Those are much better sources than what was on the article I agree. And I do think that most would describe Beverly Hills as affluent. But at the end of the day, that would still be editorializing on the part of the journalist writing the story. We don't use editorial content from media sources; I don't see using editorializing as productive either. More so than newspapers, an encyclopedia is supposed to be factual. An adjective that has no definitive meaning does not do that. My last point was meant to show that the perception of affluence does not always match the facts. According to [http://www.city-data.com/top2.html this], Beverly Hills isn't even in the top 100. [[User:John from Idegon|John from Idegon]] ([[User talk:John from Idegon|talk]]) 22:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== External links modified == |
|||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|||
I have just modified {{plural:4|one external link|4 external links}} on [[Beverly Hills, California]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=747233644 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141103002921/http://www.calafco.org/docs/Cities_by_incorp_date.doc to http://www.calafco.org/docs/Cities_by_incorp_date.doc |
|||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070903025217/http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/citytown.jsp to http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/citytown.jsp |
|||
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YSasqtfX?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2Fwww%2Fdecennial.html to http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html |
|||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911234518/http://factfinder2.census.gov to http://factfinder2.census.gov |
|||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}). |
|||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false}} |
|||
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 06:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 18:22, 11 February 2024
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||||
"Coat of Arms"?
Do we actually have a source that identifies the familiar Beverly Hills sign as it's official coat of arms? That seems odd. The image is sourced to the BH official website, but I could find nothing indicating it has the status of a coat of arms. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's actually referred to as a "shield," and I invite you to make the textual change 'cause I don't know how to do it. See https://www.newspapers.com/image/192597188/?terms=Beverly%20Hills%20Shield&match=1. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{help}} - Whoever knows how: pls change the caption under what is not a coat of arms to read "Shield".
- I thought this would be easy but I am also unable to figure it out. I did rename the file over at Commons, the field it is under in the infobox was already "image_shield" so I'm fairly baffled. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Done I figured it out by looking at the infobox documentation. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- I thought this would be easy but I am also unable to figure it out. I did rename the file over at Commons, the field it is under in the infobox was already "image_shield" so I'm fairly baffled. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{help}} - Whoever knows how: pls change the caption under what is not a coat of arms to read "Shield".
Please Update
Robert Wunderlich is no longer the incumbent mayor. The incumbent is now Lili Bosse. Please update! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.255.159 (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Done Got fixed at some point. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Beverly Hills
This entire story is so inaccurate i dont where to start. Beverly hills began when burton green couldnt buy a house in Hancock Park (because he was Jewish). It was called Beverly Hills because his wife’s name was Beverly. Hence, beverly blvd. beverly drive. Burton avenue. There were no race restrictions. Only that each home be 1 acre in size north of wilshire boulevard. The south was reserved for the working class. Their child “dolly green” was an equestrian. Yes. He did build the Beverly Hills hotel. It burned to the ground and was rebuilt. This is why wikipedia doesnt work when it comes to facts. 190.218.230.250 (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- The content in the History section of this article is reliably sourced, while none of your claims are. General Ization Talk 21:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- By the way, Burton E. Green's wife was named Lillian, not Beverly, and the Beverly Hills Hotel never burned down. General Ization Talk 21:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Broken article
I do not know what has happened, I didn't cause it but I came across this article and it appears to be broken. I am not a skilled enough editor to attempt to fix it, so perhaps this message can get to someone more qualified to fix it (as said before I did not break it, I found it this way.) Wikieditor6942021 (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)