Talk:Van Nuys

California: Los Angeles / Southern California High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

Archive 1

Requested move (2010)

Note to closing admin: please delay the closing of this RFM until Talk:Los Angeles#Various move requests involving LA Neighborhoods has closed, on May 4, 2010. Will Beback talk 20:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 - see also Talk:Los_Angeles#Various_move_requests_involving_LA_Neighborhoods Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Van Nuys, Los Angeles, California → Van Nuys, Los Angeles — Per naming conventions of neighborhoods in Chicago, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Cleveland, Detroit, &c (American cities who are notorious enough to not need the states in their names), and to make names shorter and more navigable (WP:COMMONNAME). There are four of these as it only allows me to request twenty pages at a time Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per this move. Butros (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Straight forward, and in line with what was recently agreed. Someone's working hard! Skinsmoke (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support See this move. --Jkfp2004 (talk) 20:10, 28 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.

Requested move 1 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved — JFG ^talk 15:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Van Nuys, Los Angeles → Van Nuys – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, also WP:USPLACE does not apply because Van Nuys is not a city, but a subdivision of LA. See Talk:Brooklyn#Requested_move_28_September_2016, and Harlem Prisencolin (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)--Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. The hatnote at Van Nuys, Los Angeles states that ""Van Nuys" redirects here. For other uses, see Van Nuys (disambiguation)" where six non-surname entries defer to the putative primary topic and one place name indicates an unincorporated community in Indiana. None of the dab page's four surnames, one of which is only a partial match, rises above a low level of notability. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, no need to overdisambiguate. With regards to WP:USPLACE, WP:IAR. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just because an exception is being made for Brooklyn, by the same logic of title stability leave this where it is as well. The primary redirect is harming no one and helping everyone. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the same goes for the rest of Category:Neighborhoods in Los Angeles In ictu oculi (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Van Nuys" is also a family name and the name of a rather long street in the San Fernando Valley. I believe that all the other neighborhoods in Los Angeles are identified as such. If not, they should be. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:CONCISE, and WP:CONSISTENCY with Hollywood, Queens, etc. As said in the nom, WP:USPLACE does not apply as it is not a city. And it's not "California" as the disambiguator anyway. We should remove all disambiguators of this nature where they aren't necessary as they don't help anyone. — Amakuru (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Van Nuys already redirects here, which means we've already determined it to be the primary topic, and no cogent argument has been made to the contrary. As others have noted, neighborhoods need not follow the "city, state" convention, and this move is consistent with that. Calidum ¤ 02:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that just means that it is a WP:Primary redirect, which is consistent with WP:USPLACE. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Disambiguation does not appear to be needed, this appears to be the primary topic (Van Nuys Blvd. is a different animal from Van Nuys). Herostratus (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the nom and Amakuru's rationale. Unnecessary disambiguation, WP:USPLACE doesn't apply. IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Unnecessary overdisambiguation. USPLACE does not apply, so the WP:CONCISE title is "Van Nuys". It also appears to be the primary topic. James (^talk/_contribs) 20:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I think there's a consensus to move but that's partly because I think both oppose votes give questionable rationales, so relisting.

User:BeenAroundAWhile, you don't say whether you think this is the primary topic as claimed. If so, why should this be an exception to the guideline?

User:In ictu oculi, I don't see the parallel with Brooklyn, rather it seems to follow the guidelines as it's suggested this article should too, can you elaborate? Andrewa (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was recently an RM discussion at Talk:Brooklyn on the applicability of WP:USPLACE since the 5 boroughs are listed as an exception, however WP:USPLACE also indicates that Category:Neighborhoods in Los Angeles follow California consistency. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Van Nuys is not primary because it is also the name of a historic family in Los Angeles County and also the name of a street. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the consensus, the dab page would be Van Nuys, rather than Van Nuys (disambiguation) and Van Nuys would not redirect to the neighborhood. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Talk:New York City, Talk:Los Angeles, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In examining the lengthy discussions and move requests compiled at Talk:Los Angeles/Archive index, one can find numerous proposals to remove the state name as a suffix (Talk:Los Angeles/Archive 5#Various move requests involving LA Neighborhoods), but none that arrives at a consensus or even fully discusses stand-alone neighborhood names.
The only specific guideline at WP:USPLACE concerns the five boroughs of New York City, with no indication as to neighborhoods. However, still using New York City as an example, inconsistencies become apparent in the stand-alone naming of Manhattan neighborhoods such as Lower East Side, Greenwich Village or Harlem, but not those in other boroughs (Mott Haven, Dyker Heights or Rego Park, which are listed as Mott Haven, Bronx, Dyker Heights, Brooklyn and Rego Park, Queens). South Bronx or Downtown Brooklyn are among the exceptions, probably because in would be redundant to reference them as South Bronx, Bronx or Downtown Brooklyn, Brooklyn. In fact, a glance at such categories as Neighborhoods in Manhattan highlights examples of various inharmonious headers, including Hudson Yards redirecting to Hudson Yards, Manhattan, with a further Hudson Yards (disambiguation) page.
Lengthy past discussions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names), such as 2009's Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2009/October#RfC: Article titles for US neighbourhoods or 2010's Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/November#US neighborhoods and, especially, Neighborhoods of US cities (which placed emphasis on consistency and attempted to formulate a guideline) devoted considerable time and space to the subject but, again, none arrived at a consensus which could be represented as an "official" guideline at WP:USPLACE.
The numerous remaining aspects of this matter may be submitted for discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) along with a first-time proposal for enabling all uniquely-named neighborhoods in Los Angeles to collectively shed the suffix "Los Angeles". Thus, instead of (for example) Glassell Park, Los Angeles or Harbor Gateway, Los Angeles, we would move the redirects Glassell Park and Harbor Gateway to become main title title headers, with the forms Glassell Park, Los Angeles and Harbor Gateway, Los Angeles becoming redirects. Common name multi-use forms, such as Westwood, Los Angeles would, of course, have to remain unchanged. Such changes may be concurrently or subsequently proposed for all U.S. city neighborhoods under Category:Neighborhoods in the United States by state.
As matters stand now, however, lacking a specific "neighborhood guideline" at WP:USPLACE, each discussion, such the one here, regarding Van Nuys, appears to be applicable solely to the specific entry in question, without creating a precedent, although it may serve as an example for the potential wider discussion at WT:NCGN. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 13 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 00:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Van Nuys → Van Nuys, Los Angeles – The "Neighborhood, Los Angeles" format is followed by pretty much every neighborhood in Los Angeles (with only a few very famous exceptions such as Hollywood). Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 20:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This was the setup determined by a previous RM, and I don't think there are any issues with it. The problem lies in other neighborhoods having pointless disambiguation. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Then should we move Sylmar, Los Angeles; Pacoima, Los Angeles; Arleta, Los Angeles; Porter Ranch, Los Angeles; Lake View Terrace, Los Angeles; North Hollywood, Los Angeles, etc? The last RM took place in 2016. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 21:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes (except for North Hollywood because of North Hollywood (film), which gets more views). Station1 (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was clearly answered when "Requested move 1 October 2016" was closed. Van Nuys doesn't set a precedent, each case is considered separately. Please explain what has changed since 2016 or why that thoughtfully considered change should be reversed. Fettlemap (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Favor renaming. "Van Nuys" is also a family name; moreover, it simply makes sense to indicate that this neighborhood is part of the city of Los Angeles, at first glance and without the need to read any further. As for any previous decision, well, I'm not sure, but thanks for asking. Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't the disambiguation page be moved onto the base name? Personally, I would expect Van Nuys Boulevard instead of the neighborhood -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. The disambiguation page should be moved to the base name, and this page should be moved to Van Nuys, Los Angeles. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 00:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support; firstly, a 2016 move request does not disallow another one in 2021. Secondly, there is a pattern to follow and it applies to most cases. Like with many patterns, there are exceptions, namely those that are so notable they require no clarification of a fact, such as the case of the Hollywood article, which is not Hollywood, Los Angeles. However, Van Nuys is not one of those cases. Especially in a region like LA's, where many residents don't know whether where they are is part of LA or an independent city, clarifying the status in the tilte is highly desirable. It should be moved to Van Nuys, Los Angeles. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as WP:OVERPRECISION and per WP:CONCISE. Neighborhoods generally don't add the city unless necessary for disambiguation, which is not the case here. Station1 (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the neighborhood the primary topic, instead of the boulevard? -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Primary topic doesn't come into play because one thing is called Van Nuys and the other is called Van Nuys Boulevard. There's no conflict between the two. (But even if that wasn't the case, Van Nuys gets 15 times the pageviews of the boulevard.) Station1 (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Van Nuys the street is also frequently called "Van Nuys", and people arriving here not progressing further can be people giving up from going further to the street article, as this is the primary landing spot, since the disambiguation page should have more hits than the boulevard if they had progressed from this page to that one after landing here first. As it has less, then people seem to be giving up after looking for the street instead of getting to that article. -- 67.70.27.180 (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Like virtually all articles on WP, the large majority of readers get to the street article directly. That's why it has so many more hits than the dab page. Fewer than 1% of readers landing on Van Nuys click through to the dab page, indicating that most readers land on the article they want. Station1 (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Van Nuys is also a surname.
        We could either rename this article to Van Nuys, Los Angeles and make Van Nuys a disambiguation page, or make Van Nuys a redirect to this article (as is currently the case with articles like Sylmar and Canyon Country). Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 00:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:PLACEDAB unless perhaps the DAB was moved to the base name, WP:USPLACE doesn't appear to require the city and per Station1 it looks primary anyway[[1]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject appears to be both the primary topic and the common name. If there are other LA neighborhoods that are inconsistent with our titling guidelines we should change those, not make this one inconsistent.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.