Talk:La Jolla/Archive 1

I used to live in Bird Rock, a less ritzy section of La Jolla. I have never known of La Jolla to have a mayor or municipal council of any type, except for the "town council", and even then it is always referred to in a "so to speak" tone. Also, the emergency services have always been provided by San Diego. I'd really urge somebody who has more time to look at the City of San Diego website, the County of San Diego website, and maybe the "town council of La Jolla" website. I am sure the answer, between them, is crystal clear. Also my mother and all her acquaintances insist LJ is part of SD. I think it makes perfect sense, even though the ZIP Code is weird. Kind of like how there's a town in North County (San Onofre, maybe?) that is 926xx, which is more synonymous with parts of Orange County.

I cant back up my stance any further for lack of time and patience, but the truth is with me, and perhaps not wiki. LJ is just a district with a vocal and organized clan of residents. --Coryma 21:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"La Jolla," is a word taken from the language of the local Native Americans in San Diego. It means "hole," but "the jewel" sounds better to the tourist / realty industries in San Diego, so that's the translation one hears most often.

I did some checking on this and I think the guy who wanted to sell 400 acres of hilly ground may have just as likely named the place "La Jolla Park", misspelling "La Joya". I think both stories have merit but I'd like to see some documentation on the word "woholle". It sounds like a corrupted English word. Rsduhamel 19:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Can someone please delete those "Headline Texts" I put at the bottom? I was having trouble writing this module, and that's my mistake. I am a relative rookie with wikipedia.

Got it. -Will Beback 21:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Will. I didn't even see this second goofup of mine. I'm obviously the one that accidentally made all those heading lines, not rsduhamel. Very sorry. (lets see if this timestamp works!) --Coryma 22:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

At the top of the article, it states La Jolla is "probably" based on the Spanish La Joya. This is directly contradicted in the Origin/Pronunciation section. I think it should be changed to "Pronounced 'la-HOY-ah' (which some believe is based on "La Joya", Spanish for "The Jewel"; see the Origin and Pronunciation section below)" or something to that effect.

- Ed

I personally think the inclusion of the origin of the name in the first paragraph is unnecessary, as there is already an entire section devoted to the subject further down the article. I'm going to remove the sentence regarding it for this reason. WHS 03:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Kary Mullis's website, he lives in Newport Beach, California, and in Anderson Valley, California, not La Jolla.

I'm not sure about this statement:

"La Jolla does have an informal "town" council, which ultimately gives La Jolla its' uniqueness and identity separate from the rest of San Diego."

I think ascribing La Jolla's uniqueness and identity separate from the rest of San Diego to the Town Council is giving far too much credit to the LJTC. I'm not sure of the history of the council, but I'm sure LJ's uniqueness and separate identity was established earlier...

I'm having trouble with this depiction: "La Jolla has always been regarded as the shopping mecha of San Diego, with Prospect Street and Girard Avenue, housing high end designer boutiques like Banana Republic, Polo Ralph Lauren, Rolex, Tommy Bahama, Armani Exchange and Nicole Miller to name a few, and has often been comparable and referred to as the Rodeo Drive of San Diego."

Shopping mecca of SD? Rodeo Drive? High end designer boutiques? That list sounds more like the description of an outlet mall found out in the desert, or any SD mall for that matter, than Rodeo Drive.

Also, the whole thing needs to be reviewed. It has a multiple writer choppiness to it right now, with several themes being repeated once or twice in redundant ways.

5/27/05 Serge Issakov

(cough cough cough) Shamelessly glowing and touristy.

It is my understanding that if you mail to a PO BOX in the 92038 La Jolla zip code, and write "San Diego" instead of "La Jolla" in the address, it will, or may, be returned. I also understand that this is not true for residential 92037 addresses (mail to 1234 X Ave, San Diego, CA, 92037, IS delivered).

The sentence saying as much was reverted as being "not necessarily" true.

Does anyone know for sure?

--Serge 00:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't sound true knowing post office practices. Mail carriers are not rigid about addresses and codes. Most definitely an urban legend. lots of issues | leave me a message 01:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"This doesn't sound true" hardly qualifies as knowing for sure. If you look up the address for 92037 or 92038 at www.usps.gov, it is La Jolla, not San Diego (look up the zip code for Mira Mesa, Clairemont, Rancho Penasquitos, etc., and you'll get San Diego, not the community). Look up all the zip codes of San Diego, CA on that site, and you'll get all San Diego zip codes, but not 92037 or 92038. So the official postal address of La Jolla is, La Jolla, even though it lies within the City of San Diego, and this alone makes it unique. Whether the postmaster enforces this distinction is another matter. --Serge 01:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether this rigidity is practiced is everything -- it determines if the statement is true. lots of issues | leave me a message 04:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Although it is two decades since I lived in La Jolla, I am pretty sure that my mail to my street address often had either La Jolla or San Diego and was delivered without problems. BlankVerse 12:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I wrote above, "I also understand that this is not true for residential 92037 addresses (mail to 1234 X Ave, San Diego, CA, 92037, IS delivered)." Anyway, that part is out of the article. The part about La Jolla being the only part of San Diego whose official postal address is not San Diego is still in there. --Serge 02:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if this is true, is it really encyclopedic? Apparently, we are using it to prove the assertion that La Jolla is unique relative to other SD neighborhoods. That comes very close to original research. Paring it down, removing the non-notable PO activity, we get something like:

• La Jolla's uniqueness gives it an identity separate from the rest of San Diego, and many people think of it as a separate city. This is perpetuated by La Jolla residents and business owners who often refer to the "city" or "town" of La Jolla. The official postal address for La Jolla's 92037 zip code is "La Jolla", not "San Diego" as it is for the other communities within the City of San Diego. La Jolla has several community groups which work to unify the voice of the community, including the non-profit La Jolla Town Council organization which represents the interests of the La Jolla businesses that belong to the Council.

Wouldn't that be more direct, and show, rather than assert, the perceived uniqueness? -Willmcw 04:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that first sentence is questionable. But the sentence about "La Jolla" being the official postal address is simply a fact. --Serge 06:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, as long as we don't try to extrapolate from it. Have we established that it's the only neighborhood of SD treated this way? Cheers, -Willmcw 09:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I object to the renaming of this page from La Jolla, CA to La Jolla, San Diego, CA, particularly since it was done without discussion. If it had been discussed, it would have been pointed out that although La Jolla is part of San Diego, it is not known as "La Jolla, San Diego, CA" anywhere, so why would we refer to it like that in Wikipedia? I'll wait a couple of days, but unless some reasonable explanation is given, or there is some other objection, I'll move it back (unless someone else does first). --Serge 05:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point. However, "La Jolla, CA" sounds like an incorporated city in California, which it isn't. The region itself is still only a neighborhood of SD (though with a little extra kick because of the PO thing). Therefore, I think San Diego should appear in the title somehow. Perhaps "La Jolla (San Diego, CA)" would be better fitting, or maybe "La Jolla" by itself (without the "CA") seems also acceptable. Actually the latter seems best, in my opinion. 69.232.65.49 02:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

CA is a postal abbreviation. How is it an implication of incorporation? There are probably thousands of places normally referred to by the postal designation, Place, ST (where ST is a state abbreviation), that are not incorporated, or are postal addresses within incorporated cities. Should the page on Manhattan be renamed to Manhattan, New York City, NY? I guess just "La Jolla" would be okay, but it's not nearly as well known as Manhattan. I think the ", CA" gives it useful context to those who don't know it. Let's see what others think. --Serge 07:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Just change it back if you really don't like "San Diego" in the title. There can be a good case made either way, but you're the one who cares the most. I would just change it and let happen what happens. 69.232.65.49 11:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed this discussion. It is a standard for neighborhoods of incorporated cities to be titled "neighborhood, city, state". See category:San Diego neighborhoods. While I know that folks in La Jolla are special, for general encyclopedic usage it is important to name things consistently. Also, we never use "CA", either in titles or even in articles. Since we've established that La Jolla is indeed a part of the incorporated city of San Diego, is there some reason why it should be treated differenlty from other neighborhoods? Thanks, -Willmcw 08:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I already changed it back to La Jolla, California. I was not aware of the neighborhood, city, state "standard". Is it documented anywhere? The closest I could find under Help was a statement that there is no standard for incorporated cities, unless they are non-unique.

Anyway, La Jolla (not the people) is different from other SD "neighborhoods" since it has its own postal address, and is itself comprised of "neighborhoods": "The Village", "Bird Rock", "La Jolla Shores", "Muirlands", "Wind 'N Sea", "La Jolla Farms", etc. --Serge 18:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It's odd that the naming convention article doesn't reflect the standard, which has been in place in the Los Angeles neighborhoods for a while. The postal address thing doesn't make a neighborhood unique, that's the case for numerous neighborhoods. And yes, many neighborhoods also have subdistricts. Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, is an exampe of a well-known place that nonetheless has been named in comformity with the standard. -Willmcw 20:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe because it's more of a convention than a standard? But the Hollywood example is pretty good. I tell you what, if you get away with changing Manhattan to Manhattan, New York City, New York, I'll change La Jolla, California to La Jolla, San Diego, California. --Serge 22:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the title of the Manhattan page is only "Manhattan," not "Manhattan, New York," which would then be comparable to "La Jolla, California." Manhattan isn't precisely a neighborhood either, it's a borough and has specific representation within the NYC government, affording it some distinction from New York City proper, and perhaps saving its page from the agreeably ghastly title "Manhattan, New York City, New York." Hollywood has its own neighborhood council and in 2002 tried to secede with San Fernando Valley, and it is infamously known for its unique character within Los Angeles (much more so than La Jolla's cultural differences from San Diego), yet it remains "Hollywood, Los Angeles, California." 69.232.65.49 03:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Since there is such a stong difference of opinion, this article should probably be listed at Requested moves and Requests for comments. My personal opinion is that the name should be at La Jolla, San Diego, California, in the same manner that Hillcrest is at Hillcrest, San Diego, California, and Pacific Beach is at Pacific Beach, San Diego, California. ^BlankVerse 15:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I posted a note about this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names). That'd be the logical place to discuss general city naming. Thanks. -Willmcw 01:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)I'm from La Jolla, and everyone calls it La Jolla, California. It was until fairly recently a separate municipality, and retains a town council (like Hollywood). It doesn't really parallel with Manhattan with regards to its relationship to the greater city of San Diego, but it is certainly distinct, much moreso than Pacific Beach or Hillcrest.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.140.202.1 (talk • contribs) .

As far as I know, La Jolla has never been a separate municipality, and certainly not "fairly recently". There have been and are continuing efforts, however, to turn it into a separate municipality.

I think the community, city, state naming convention makes sense for communities that are not well known. I think it's silly for Hollywood as well as for La Jolla. --Serge 22:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of a convention is standardization. It is very beneficial to editors and readers alike to have articles named in a consistent, predictable fashion. Regarding Manhattan, it's a county and so an entirely different situation. Regarding independent La Jolla, when was it a separate municipality? I can't find any mention of that fact anywhere. If it's true, we should mention it in the article. -Willmcw 23:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Any benefit of naming conventions in Wikipedia can be fully realized through redirects. The primary name of any article should be based on actual usage, not some artificial convention. As far as I'm concerned, this article should be simply named "La Jolla". --Serge 06:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems the standard far and wide is to do "neighborhood, city, state." I think in the interest of consistency, the title of this article should be "La Jolla, San Diego, California" since despite its relative fame, La Jolla by definition is simply a neighborhood of San Diego and at the technical level (which is what we're interested in) boasts no more autonomy than Pacific Beach or Kearny Mesa. In fact, I believe the blue signs at the edge of La Jolla say something like "La Jolla, a community of San Diego" which is consistent with the blue signs along the edge of every other neighborhood in the city. Hollywood is vastly more famous than La Jolla, but its page upholds the convention (perhaps because it lacks the same identity crisis). It is my contention that this article should be renamed to conform until either the convention itself is debunked or La Jolla gains independent status from San Diego. Soltras 07:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Until someone can point to an official Wiki area that documents the "convention", it is debunked. By the way, referring to Hollywood as Hollywood, Los Angeles, California is silly and embarrassing, but I guess I should be saying that on their talk page. One more thing, naming conventions like that are much more important in books where name determines location (usually alphabetical). But in an online reference where everything is found by name directly from a simple search, it's all moot and silly. --Serge 22:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia standard for neighborhood article naming is articulated here: WikiProject Southern California. It is neighborhood, city, state. --Orayzio 23:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia has naming guidelines and conventions, not standards. Second, the [[neighborhood, city, state]] format, promoted by a gang of standards-enamored Wiki editors who put the interests of editors over readers in violation of Wikipedia policy, is not "articulated" in the above link, and would be a violation of the primary Wikipedia naming policy (use the most common/used name for article titles) if it were. Finally, La Jolla would clearly be an exception to any such convention, since, unlike any other community in southern California that is part of an incorporated city, La Jolla is officially known as La Jolla, California, despite being a part of the city of San Diego. See the Identity section of the article. --Serge 06:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If there is a political body officially representing La Jolia in another/as a separate/between several entity(ies), to avoid ambiguity there may be cause to indicate it under its own title. If a such case does not exist, the Wiki standard geographical "neighbourhood, city, state" should reign here - the uninformed must be able to find it on a map, after all. thepromenader 17:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, there is no Wiki naming standard. Only guidelines and conventions. Acting like any of these conventions are "written in stone" (like standards) is a violation of Wiki policy. As far as finding it on a map, most maps show La Jolla. Not to mention that the first sentence in the intro states that La Jolla is part of San Diego. What's the problem? --Serge 19:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

So if La Jolia is indeed a jurisdiction of San Diego, what's the problem with stating this truth in the title? Have we something against San Diego here? Would we rather that La Jolia be found somewhere else? Please refer to the AGI if in doubt - as we all should be able to. thepromenader 22:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

First, it's La Jolla, not "La Jolia". Second, AGI is a disambig page - I have no idea what you're talking about. Third, the problem with "La Jolla, San Diego, California" in the title is that it is misleading. Even though it is a community name, the official name is "La Jolla, California". This is how it is referred to. Read this whole section. Read the identity section in the article. Finally, the Wikipedia [[community, city, state]] format is an odd format anyway, and violates the primary Wikipedia naming convention: use the most known/recognized name. --Serge 23:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo, and that would be the American Geological Institute I was referring to. I have read everything. I don't see how "San Diego" in the title can be misleading when La Jolla is indeed in San Diego. I also think the selective 'Wiki protocol' arguments presented here are quite stretched to suit the purpose - common names, yes, but omitting proper geographical locations, no. The article is not for locals only - the rest of the world has to find it too. thepromenader 19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Your American Geological Institute is still a link to nowhere, so it's of little help. Thousands of people from all over the world visit La Jolla every year, most of whom have no idea that La Jolla is part of San Diego proper, and yet have no trouble finding it. The [[community, city, state]] format does is make explicit the arbitrary local governing jurisidictions. Whether a given local community is unincorporated, incorporated as itself, or part of a larger incorporated city is a political/government issue, not a geographical issue, if that's your point. --Serge 20:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I wikified the acronym, and the reason for my indicating it was clear - if it's a redlink then perhaps there should be an article on it, but no matter as this can hardly serve as an argument. I don't think general ignorance can be used as a plausible argument either. From my outside point of view, what I sense here is a rather unhealthy obsession to make this article namespace, by any means or imaginative argument possible, seem not to have anything to do with San Diego thus an exception to the rest of a quite logic-founded Wiki standard. It would seem rather silly to try to make it seem that a community is not a part of a greater administrative entity when it actually is. Apologies, but I see neither the reason nor the point of all the fuss. Place things where they are and make life easier for those trying to find them - this is the entire purpose of the Wiki standard. thepromenader 22:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, use of the [[community, city, state]] format for community article names is not a Wiki standard. The fact that you keep stating it as one indicates your bias. At best, the use is an undocumented convention the stated purpose of which is specious, as noted by the ever-shifting explanations for it whenever it is questioned. Enforcing it when there is no ambiguity issue is arguably a blatant violation of Wiki policy. Even use of the WP:NPOV-violating [[city, state]] convention, is not a Wiki standard (see New York City), albeit that one is at least documented. My opposition ultimately stems from the use of any of these conventions for any cities and communities where an ambiguity issue is not relevant. I've been consistent on this. If you think it's about making "it seem that a community is not a part of a greater administrative entity when it actually is", you're not getting it. I'm saying the "greater administrative entity relationship" is too irrelevant to warrant making it part of the article name. In particular, it doesn't warrant overriding use of the most common name. To the extent that the "greater administrative entity relationship" is of any import, that's covered in the introductory sentence of the into. But why smear the article name with some concocted name? No other encyclopedia does it, why should Wikipedia? --Serge 23:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Replace "standard" with "convention" then as for me the meaning remains the same. Bias? No. Common sense, yes. Where in California is La Jolla? - California is two-thirds the size of France, remember. Why would you not want "San DIego" in the title? I have yet to read a solid fact-based argument defending this - yet even the first message in this page is a solid argument for. The 'returned mail' argument looks even like inventive nonsense. What naming conventions do the majority of references/government offices use when naming La Jolla? This should have the final say. thepromenader 23:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Standard is not a synonym for convention; the former implies mandatory adherence that the latter does not. Do me a favor, and go to this usps.gov page. Now, type in the zip code of the San Diego community of San Ysidro: 92143. You will see: "Actual city name: SAN YSIDRO, CA; other acceptable city name: SAN DIEGO, CA" Now, do another lookup and type in the zip code of another San Diego community, Clairemont: 92123. You will see "city name: San Diego". Finally, type in La Jolla's zip code: 92037. This time you will see "LA JOLLA, CA", and nothing about "other acceptable city names". All official mail from the city of San Diego to any address in La Jolla is addressed "La Jolla, CA". Mail addressed to "San Diego, CA 92038" is returned by the post office. The naming convention used by the majority of refererences/government offices when naming La Jolla, is La Jolla, not San Diego, and never La Jolla, San Diego, California. For whatever reason, and the reasons do not ultimately matter, the political/government jurisdiction of San Diego notwithstanding, La Jolla is generally known as and referred to as La Jolla or La Jolla, California, and the name of Wikipedia article, which is supposed to use the most common/known name, should be named accordingly. --Serge 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

One last one before bed. Personally I don't consider the post office argument a good one, as reasons for this may be other (service, etc) than geographical naming practices, but if mainstream references and official organisations do indeed use "La Jolla, California" than there can be little argument against. Again, common generalistic or offhand naming uses do not outweigh official or referenced ones. There only remains to consider the conventions in use for this particular reference, Wikipedia - uniformity is an issue for any publication. I really wonder what they're going to do for the printed version. thepromenader 00:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition, wiki US naming conventions would seem to be "City, State". So no fuss. It would to me seem more logical to provide additional geographical reference, but if it is not needed nor required, then hey. It's too bad that many of this page's sometimes even inventive arguments were in veins outide of this - reference should hold sway over all. thepromenader 00:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second. La Jolla isn't even a city, but a San Diego city neighbourhood with no independant administrative representation of its own? This little factoid changes everything - and makes this look like a ridiculous vanity fight. La Jolla, San Diego, California all the way - until it becomes a city on its own. thepromenader 07:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be true IF using the [[community, city, state]] format was a documented Wiki policy standard for communities. But there is no such policy or standard. At best, there is a poorly defended ("standards for the sake of standards") and undocumented convention, that, for all of the reasons I stated above, does not override the use of the actual documented Wiki naming policy - use the most common name/recognized name (except for ambiguity cases - which this is not), which in this case dictates either La Jolla or La Jolla, California, and most certainly not La Jolla, San Diego, California. --Serge 16:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, really you are just selecting arguments to support your predetermined goal of avoiding (for reasons unknown) all association with of San Diego. The idea of writing an article on a city's neighbourhood without mention of the city it is part of is quite silly. thepromenader 17:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not violate WP:AGF. I am not "selecting arguments". I have only one argument: Enforced use of the contrived [[city, state]] and [[community, city, state]] formats for city and community article names when there is no ambiguity issue with the better known or more common name ([[city]] or [[community]] or, as in this case, [[community, state]]), is unencyclopedic and violates Wikipedia naming policy. Everything I have argued supports this assertion or is derived from it. --Serge 18:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, really. Serge, many others in this talk page have pointed out the error in your rather stand-offish attempt to disassociate a neighbourhood from its parent city as though it was a city itself. Even the "City, State" argument is irrelevant - La Jolla is not a city, it is a neighbourhood, and leaving the title as such would make people think it is a city all on its own. Or would this be the point of all this? Wiki conventions are here for the better comprehension of an indiscriminate international all. You see, even I didn't 'get it' until this morning - how would you expect others to? thepromenader 19:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You are ignoring my points. But I won't ignore yours. No, making it seem that La Jolla is a city is not what this is about. In order to understand my point, you're going to have to take my word for it (assume good faith), assume it's true, and interpret my words accordingly. If you keep thinking, "all he wants is to hide the fact that La Jolla is not a city for some unstated reason", and interpret my words accordingly, you're never going to get my point. This is a good example for why Wikipedia has the assume good faith policy. Check it out. Anyway, Ramona, California (as but one example off the top of my head - there are countless others) is not an incorporated city either, yet it uses the [[city, state]] naming format. If you think that format implies "incorporated city", you're wrong. By the way, what part of "La Jolla is a ... community ... within the city of San Diego, California" did you not get until this morning? --Serge 19:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not ignoring your points - they simply aren't answerable. No mater the Wiki protocol (you select as a defense/choose to oblige on others), none can give you reason to obfuscate the fact that a city's neighbourhood.... is a neigbourhood of that city. This is just trying to play the system to a quite personal end. Most all here seek reason, so keep the gambit there please above all.

A couple last points before closing the case on this. First off, what is this citing of Ramona, California, a unincorporated town - meaning truely independant and part of no other municipality - of San Diego County as an 'example' - of what? La Jolla is an integral part of San Diego City. This is quite apples to oranges my friend, and one can even question the motivation of forwarding such an argument.

If this was not enough, I really began to wonder when, after reading a talk page full of opposition and looking to the article history to see what all the fuss is about, I see: "moved La Jolla, San Diego, California to La Jolla, California: Please try to reach consensus though discussion by addressing my points, not imposing majority will which violates WP:Etiquette". This has got to be about the weakest argument for a revert against consensus that I've ever heard. This is pure revert-bullyism - as the threat of reverting is the final word. This is far from the first time I've seen this technique used, and I'm sorry to say that it is both very tiresome and effective. You have five people stating in a vote below that La Jolla, San Diego, California - or its form - is the correct title to use. This also is not to be ignored - and is an example of consensus in its purest form.

Please, Serge, for the sake of everyone, get off it. Your neighbourhood has no political independance, is an integral and political part of the city of San Diego, and obfuscating this information against all logic and consensus is certainly not in the interest of others' better understanding. thepromenader 22:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are ignoring my arguments, or not comprehending them. You are certainly not addressing them. I continue to address yours...

1. I used Ramona, California as an example to illustrate the point that using the [[city, state]] format for a given city does not necessarily imply that city is an independent political municipality. Yes, Ramona is an exception to that not because it is a community of a larger city, but because it is an unincorporated town. But the point is, it is an exception, and it is but one of countless examples. This is a point in my argument; it is not the entire argument. Please understand it as such. And see the next point for how it applies.
   1. The above doesn't even make any sense. Exception to what? If Ramona, California is part of no greater municipal entity, then it is an independant entity like any city or town. La Jolla is an integral part of the greater municipality that is the city of San Diego. thepromenader 09:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
2. You claim the naming of this article as La Jolla, California is an obfuscation of the fact that La Jolla is a community of San Diego. This can be so only if the use of the [[city, state]] naming format for a given city is an implication that city is an independent political municipality. But we've already seen this is not the case (see the previous point). Or, perhaps you're saying that the use of the [[city, state]] naming format for city implies that either city is an independent political municipality, or it is an unofficial "town" or "community" that is not part of any political municipality. Only with that rather cumbersome definition, which is unreasonable to expect readers to know and understand, can you contend that naming this article La Jolla, California is an obfuscation of the fact that La Jolla is a community of a larger municipality. Give me a break. That is such a stretch, you haven't even bothered to spell it out yourself.
   1. Or, perhaps you're saying that the use of the [[city, state]] naming format for city implies that either city is an independent political municipality, or it is an unofficial "town" or "community" that is not part of any political municipality.
      The above is actually correct, logical and comprehensive to any uninformed reader: If it isn't part of something, than it's something on its own. If almost all of Wiki is using this convention, and one article doesn't, it will indeed be confusing to a reader if one city neighbourhood appears to be an independant entity or city - that it isn't. See my closing comments below. thepromenader 09:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
3. I have never argued that La Jolla has political independence. I simply disagree that naming this article La Jolla, California implies that it does have political independence. I think all communities, not just La Jolla, should be named according to, well, their name, not according to some convoluted format that results in a name by which the community is practically never referred, which is what naming according to the [[community, city, state]] format produces. In fact, I favor the name La Jolla over La Jolla, California. The La Jolla, San Diego, California name is contrary to conventional usage and contrary to what every professional encyclopedia does. Here are just three examples:
   1. Proof of the matter is that when I first saw this article I thought that La Jolla was a city or town. The reason for this first reaction is that a) appearing as [["Name", State]], it would appear that, according to most every other article here, that "name" is the largest independant administrative entity between itself and "State", meaning it is either a city or town - this is not the case - and b) the conventions adopted for all other US Wiki articles led me to expect that I would see the same logic here. We are not arguing for the definition of La Jolla "as" anything, as we all agree that it is a community, so I don't know what the other encyclopedias could prove actually - proof of other naming conventions? Wiki already has its own.thepromenader 09:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• La Jolla in encyclopedia.com
• La Jolla in encarta.msn.com
• La Jolla in bartleby.com

I challenge you, or anyone else, to find even one encyclopedia (that is not Wikipedia or derived from Wikipedia) that uses anything other than the name of a community for the name of the article for that community. Naming this article La Jolla, San Diego, California is unencylopedic because naming according to the [[community, city, state]] format is unencyclopedic, by definition.

--Serge 00:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If this was an issue about using the most known/recognized name, nearly every article for every neighborhood in any city across the United States would be titled with just the neighborhood name. As an example, if I told anyone in San Diego, "I live in Hillcrest", they would know exactly what I meant. But the most known/recognized name isn't about what locals use but what makes sense for both locals and non-locals. For better or for worse, "a" naming convention has been established for Southern California neighborhood articles and this article should be named in the same manner as all the other neighborhoods. As to the "official name", yes, the U.S. Postal Service postmark for La Jolla reads "La Jolla, California", but as I understand it, this was due to an act of congress on behalf of La Jolla residents. Also, this is about the name of a Wikipedia article and not a vanity fight about how some want to separate La Jolla from San Diego.--Orayzio 00:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is about what the best name for this article should be in Wikipedia. Who said anything about separating La Jolla from San Diego? The reason every U.S. city (except New York City, thankfully) is titled according to the [[city, state]] format, and most communities according to the [[community, city, state]] format, is because there is a gang of Wiki editors who, contrary to Wikipedia policy, favor ease of use for editors over the interests of Wikipedia readers. These naming "conventions" fly in the face of every known convention used by any professional encyclopedia. Someone created a bot that just cranked out all the city article names according to this inane format, regardless of whether there were any ambiguity issues, and the standards-for-the-sake-of-standards types took care of the rest, much to the detriment of Wikipedia. Note that no other country in the world uses this inane format. Thank you, Paris, London, Beijing, Tokyo and Mexico City, etc.. Please do not change the name of this article unless this issue is resolved on the Talk page. La Jolla is an exception. --Serge 01:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Resolved on the Talk page"? That would be fair if you were willing to accept the fact that the majority of people talking on this page that are not named Serge favor the "La Jolla, San Diego, California" name. Look at the votes that were previously taken on changing the name to just "La Jolla". The majority opposed that change and even most of the supporters stated that they prefer the neighborhood, city, state naming. Your argument that La Jolla, California is the common name fails when the common view here is the opposite of yours. --Orayzio 16:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, "argue facts, not personalities". I recognize that I am in the minority on this, but that's largely irrelevant, since Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, and its "primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting". Supporting the most common name has been the minority case on most every city and community talk page in the U.S where this issue has been discussed, except for New York City, where there happens to be enough people who have the character and intelligence to recognize the absurdity of the pro-standard-naming-format arguments. On that one page, a majority supported the essential argument I am making here, and rejected the arguments of the consistency-obsessed gang members inexplicably favoring consistent but non-encyclopedic formats for city and community names; standards for the sake of standards. On every other page, not enough people cared and/or were able to articulate the arguments necessary to counter the imposition of the consistency gang. It's a real shame to Wikipedia, and is hardly an argument to continue the travesty here. Please follow Wikipedia policy including "work towards agreement", "concede a point, when you have no response to it; or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.", "primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting", etc., before changing the name. Thank you. --Serge 18:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, your final sentence, "Your argument that La Jolla, California is the common name fails when the common view here is the opposite of yours." is nonsense. What the common name is in the real world has nothing to do with the common view expressed here about what should be the name of this article, especially when those favoring La Jolla, San Diego, California are not arguing that they favor that name because it is the more common name. By the way, FWIW, from google: Results 1 - 20 of about 2,360,000 English pages for "la jolla, california", and Results 1 - 20 of about 11,600 English pages for "la jolla, san diego, california". So, according to google, there are 200 times as many references to "La Jolla, California" than to "La Jolla, San Diego, California". 200 times! Arguing that "La Jolla, San Diego, California" is the more common name is absurd, and no one (until you) has even tried to do that. --Serge 18:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Over the months, the more I have read about this issue, the more I have edged into agreement with Serge. I think all place names should be the place name only (ex "Los Angeles" not "Los Angeles, California" because "Los Angeles" is the name of that city). Similarly, this article should be called "La Jolla" -- not "La Jolla, California" or "La Jolla, San Diego, California". While that has clearly been the convention for both neighborhoods, cities, and regions in the US, from what I have read of Wiki's official designations, it seems to defy the policy that article names should reflect the general name. And the general name for La Jolla is "La Jolla". This isn't an issue about whether or not La Jolla is incorporated or has a town council or even has a bakery. If convention is so important, let us yield to the greater convention used by the rest of the world for cities like Vancouver, London, etc (unless specific disambiguation is necessary), like Vancouver, Washington which works fine in that situation. As long as I have been editing here I have seen endless debates on this matter and for some reason it stirs strong emotions in people. I think it is important for a consensus to be made larger than the audience of this La Jolla talk page, and I think care should be taken to separate "what has always been" from "what should actually be." Soltras 01:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be reminded that I have no personal involvement here - my opininion is an outside view. When I see that all the other San Diego communities - and most all other US placename articles in Wiki for that matter - have adopted the [[City, State]] and [[Neighbourhood, City, State]] naming convention, it is quite obvious that when one article exempts itself from this and adopts a [[Neighbourhood, State]] system, then the uninformed reader will assume that the [[Neighbourhood]] is a [[City]].

I'm sorry, but if you are a neighbourhood wishing to disassociate yourself from its city, yet the rest of the encyclopedia uses a "Neighbourhood, City, State" scheme, then it's the entire system you'll have to change if you care anything about reader understanding. thepromenader 09:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Addition: Before the postal argument resurfaces: Although the US Post office does make an exception in making it seem, through its own addressing conventions, that La Jolla is a city on all on its own, it is nothing of the kind. I'm sure that a majority of Wiki readers want foremost to know where a neighbourhood is geographically and/or administratively; I'm sure that few come to find how to send a letter to it.

If La Jolla is indeed part of the city of San Diego, and most all Wiki articles use the [[neighbourhood, city]] convention, than any objection to the inclusion of the city name in the article namespace can only have vanity as a motive. thepromenader 11:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not a resident of La Jolla (I'm next to it though) and my personal opinion is that La Jolla should remain part of San Diego (i.e. I'm against any kind of secession movement). However, like I said, this issue isn't about La Jolla's autonomy or its relation to San Diego. Those are fine details for the article itself. This issue is about La Jolla's name which is indisputably "La Jolla." Even a proud non-La Jollan like me can't argue that "La Jolla" is the one-and-only name of that encyclopedia worthy community just west of me. I disagree with "La Jolla, California" because that's not its name, even if it's its postal designation and I disagree with "La Jolla, San Diego, California" because that is certainly not its name. The only argument I have read in favor of naming it "La Jolla, San Diego, California" is that it has been convention to label neighborhoods in this manner. I am not disputing that La Jolla is a neighborhood and I am not suggesting that La Jolla be made an exception because of its postal designation, isolation, or any other reason -- I am saying that the convention itself is awkward and unnecessary, and no authoritative source that I have read in Wiki's policy officially decrees its use (otherwise, almost every non-US city article would be in violation) other than the convention's continued usage itself, which self-perpetuates the argument that all cities and neighborhoods should adhere. I just can't understand how that's a valid reason. That's where I'm coming from on this matter. Soltras 18:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The article says La Jolla has 24,440 people. Where did this precise figure come from? There isn't even a date attached. I'm in favor of changing that to "about 25,000 people" - I'm sure on weekends there are over 25,000 people in La Jolla anyway, and in the summer even higher numbers. I'll make the edit, but I'll wait a bit in case someone has compelling evidence that La Jolla does have 24,440 people. Soltras 16:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This page seems to resemble the Anaheim Hills, California page remarkably similar. That page has had an enormous amount of controversy about the namesake and the status, and if it should include an infobox or not since the data is readily avalible. I notice that many of the editors that participated in this articles shaping and talk also take interest in the Anaheim Hills article. Maybe one day, (like Anaheim Hills) is trying to do, La Jolla will gain independence from San Diego just like Anaheim Hills will someday. I like the editing of this article as well, and keep representing these small communities well! --Ericsaindon2 05:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Since "La Jolla" (not "La Jolla, California", and certainly not "La Jolla, San Diego, California") is the most commonly used name for La Jolla, since "La Jolla" is not ambiguous, and since "La Jolla" is not a city but a community, I suggest we change this article name back to simply, "La Jolla".

Please vote and sign whether you support or oppose this change. A vote in support means you agree the name of the article should be La Jolla. A vote to oppose means you think it should stay La Jolla, California, or be something else like (God forbid) La Jolla, San Diego, California.

Voting will be closed in five days, on June 17, 2006. --Serge 23:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Serge 23:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. -Will Beback 00:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose (from only about 50 miles away). Would prefer the standard "La Jolla, San Diego, California". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I am warming up to the idea of naming neighborhoods by their sole name (i.e. simply "La Jolla"), though I still prefer "La Jolla, San Diego, California" to its current format of just "La Jolla, California." Soltras 06:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Place names should have a consistent format, so even if La Jolla is a unique name, it should follow the format that other communities do. Community, City, State strikes me as the smartest solution. Sxeptomaniac 22:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose:This is how its done. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 01:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is value in a wikilink that is in the format of Location, State, since the reader can run the mouse over the link to see more details on the link. Wikipedia already allows (via the | option) an editor to not display part of the name of an article, so there is no EDITING need to reduce the article name to just "La Jolla". (And I also agree with standardization: if there is only one Takoma Park in the world, should that article be changed from "Takoma Park, Maryland" to just "Takoma Park"? Should editors go through all place names and change them when the state is not needed to prevent duplication?) John Broughton 13:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if Takoma Park is the only Takoma Park, then I see no reason to add disambiguation baggage to the article name. The option | syntax can be used to augment any reference to Takoma Park or La Jolla with additional geographical information, if that is deemed useful by the editor in the context of where the reference is made. But to have this baggage added to an article name whose first sentence clarifies what it is anyway is redundant, unprofessional, unnecessary, non-standard, contrary to fundamental Wiki article naming principles, and ridiculous. --Serge 16:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think opposing this shows an attempt at planning and consistency, and there is nothing unprofessional or ridiculous about that. The guidelines for city article naming shows that this is not "non-standard" nor "contrary to fundamental Wiki article naming principles." Remember that common usage for someone in Southern California might be La Jolla, but it's a big world out there, and common usage for someone in another state or country would require including San Diego or California, if not both. I wonder if this argument is going to come up over every article about a Southern California community. Sxeptomaniac 22:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I applaud the "attempt at planning and consistency", but question the efficacy of this particular attempt. The "guidelines" you refer to are specific to U.S. city article names and are themselves in conflict with the planning and consistency we both value. These guidelines are in conflict with not only general Wiki article naming principles (use the most common name except when necessary to disambiguate), but with Wiki city naming guidelines that apply for every city in the world outside the U.S. The "convention" was borne not from "planning and consistency", but out of laziness: the requirements of automated software that was used to automate the creation of the majority of U.S. city name articles from census data or something. Instead of identifying ambiguities and adding disambiguity baggage (, state) to those names only, it was easier to write the software to add the disambiguity baggage to every city name, whether it warranted it or not. Once the "bot" software created all those articles, the claim was made that [[city, state]] was a standard convention, and expanded to an an even more contrived and ironically unconventional "convention" for communities: [[community, city, state]]. I see no reason to comply with these godawful, inconsistent and contrived guidelines, and every reason to ignore them. But, I'm obviously in the minority. Sadly, this oddball "convention" just provides more fodder for Wikipedia critics who cite examples of Wikipedia amateurism like this. --Serge 01:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Standard format for articles on American places, except those which are both world-reknowned and completely unambiguous (like Chicago New York; Chicago is Chicago, Illinois). No reason to change. Septentrionalis 22:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason to change is to be consistent with every professional encyclopedia in the known universe and with every Wiki article naming convention used in every category except (for some inexplicable reason) U.S. place names. Why this reason does not resonate with others I cannot understand. But it's very disappointing. --Serge 01:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current name is okay, although I would prefer the article title to be La Jolla, San Diego, California. 11:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlankVerse (talk • contribs) 23 June 2006
• Oppose - La Jolla, San Diego, California is better for all who would care to find it, by far. thepromenader 17:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Support --OC31113 04:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this line in the article: 'The area was known as La Jolla Park at least as early as 1886.' I believe I have a reference that predates that. In Les Misérables, published in 1862, **SPOILERS FOLLOW** one character, Thénardier, talks of going to "La Joya": Il y a en Amérique, dans un pays qui est du côté de Panama, un village appelé la Joya. Ce village se compose d'une seule maison. ... ce pays est dangereux; il est plein d'anthropophages. Alors pourquoi y va-t-on? c'est que ce pays est merveilleux; on y trouve de l'or. taken from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17519/17519-h/17519-h.htm (about 7/8ths of the way down) My trusty English translation (Fahnestock & MacAfee) says that means: In America, in a region which is near Panama, there is a village called La Joya. This village consists of a single house. ... the country is dangerous; it is full of cannibals. Then why do people go there? Because it is a wonderful country; gold is found there. The character then talks about his wish to move to La Joya. Anyways, my point is, as far as I know, Les Misérables was never revised, so doesn't this illustrate it's existence as early as 1862 ? 208.59.171.97 22:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, but perhaps Hugo was referring to the "La Joya" in Panama (now the site of a prison), rather than to "La Jolla" in California? -Will Beback 05:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Awww, you're probably right. 208.59.171.97 20:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The current name of this article, La Jolla, San Diego, California, though consistent with the unencyclopedic and Wikipedia-naming-policy-violating [[community, city, state]] format, is well, unencyclopedic, cumbersome, and violates the Wikipedia naming policy (which says to use the most common name), not to mention that practically no one refers to La Jolla as La Jolla, San Diego, California. Note the google usage results:

• Results 1 - 20 of about 32,300,000 English pages for "la jolla"
• Results 1 - 20 of about 2,360,000 English pages for "la jolla, california"
• Results 1 - 20 of about 11,600 English pages for "la jolla, san diego, california"

Use of the [[community, city, state]] format is an undocumented arbitrary and pointless convention at best, so there is no reason to follow it. Why not name this article simply by how most people refer to the subject of the article, namely La Jolla? Why not name this article simply by how all other encyclopedias do it, namely La Jolla? La Jolla already redirects directly here, so there is no ambiguity issue. Unless there are objections with well-stated reasons, I will go ahead and request that this article be renamed accordingly. Simply saying one wants it to stay La Jolla, San Diego, California for the sake of following an undocumented arbitrary contrived convention, without addressing the points above about the current name being unencyclopedic, cumbersome and violating the use-the-common-name Wiki naming policy, will not be considered a well-stated reason. Also, stating the consensus is to name it such-and-such is not a well-stated reason objecting to the points made above. Reminder: Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Consensus is reached by discussion, not simple statments of opinion by a majority. See WP:Etiquette. Thank you. --Serge 01:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

To keep bringing up the same issue again and again isn't productive. Didn't you start a straw poll in June? -Will Beback 01:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This time I'm asking for reasoned arguments, not opinions. Very different. --Serge 01:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What's our source for the unique treatment of La Jolla by the USPS? -Will Beback 01:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

See usps.com. Do the zip code lookups yourself. La Jolla is 92037, 92038, 92039, 92092 and 92093. Note that La Jolla comes up for all of them, and San Diego for none of them. Then, search for San Diego, CA, and you'll find the 85 San Diego zip codes for every community in the city of San Diego, except the five zip codes for La Jolla. Now, take the San Diego community of San Ysidro, California, that actually was its own municipality a few decades ago. Punch it in and you get 92143 and 92173. Now punch in those zip codes, and you'll get San Ysidro, but it will also say that "San Diego" is acceptable for those zip codes as well. It doesn't say that for the La Jolla zip codes. For every other community in San Diego, the community name is not acceptable at all; only "San Diego" is accepted. I just report the facts, I don't make 'em up. --Serge 01:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me as original research. I think we should leave it out unless we can come up with a secondary source. -Will Beback 05:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Need we go over the Wikipedia naming conventions on every single community? Anaheim Hills, Hollywood, Newport Coast and now La Jolla? I notice that the same people go to each community page opposing the (community, state) or (community) in favor of the (community, city, state) form. It is like a broken record. When will the people who insist (community, city, state) is the way to go just give up? You are clearly wrong, for the core Wikipedia naming policy rule is that you must be as precise and as common as possible. Now, I can bet money I would not walk up to someone on the street and they'd say 'I live in La Jolla, San Diego, California', they would say 'I live in La Jolla'. Thus, making La Jolla the most "common" name by Wikipedia standards. As stated on the Anaheim Hills page by other editors, you dont call George Bush, George Walker Bush. Because George Bush is more common, and that is what the article is named. It seems that the community articles have an 'exception' for the rule of using a common name (although it is not stated ANYWHERE), for all 2 million other articles follow that principle. OC31113 01:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may - Wiki is not destined to a few La Jolla locals sharing the same common knowledge and common language. Since it is destined to an international audience, a majority of Wiki contributors - through thought, experiment, time and widespread consensus - have developed and adopted a naming convention/practice, and it would be in the interest of homogeneity, thus reader comprehension, that contributors abide by it. If a majority adopts a naming system, it is only natural that wanton exceptions (minority) will be a subject of criticism. If a few contributors see problem with the convention and no longer want to be subject of criticism, in the interest of Wiki readership (and Wiki credibility), it is the convention itself they first must change. thepromenader 10:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I know it is not about the "locals" and I am sure the "locals" will never read the article for they live there. But what I am saying is the title does not need to be the second article. The article states what city it is part of in the first sentence. Now, about your arguement that we are appealing to a national audience. Well, I have a question? If someone lives in Alabama, and does not know about San Diego, then they will go to the article. The article would not state (San Diego, San Diego County, California), which in this case, San Diego County is part of the larger picture of San Diego. So why should communities state their city, or their larger picture. I mean, if we want to get technical, then lets get technical. How about? (San Diego, San Diego County, Southern California, California, United States, Western Hemisphere, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy). That would be the technical reference to the city, yet it is just San Diego, California. So, everything is not as precise on Wikipedia as you make it sound.OC31113 19:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You continue to repeat the same tired and syllogistic argument which has been addressed and refuted multiple times, and continue to ignore (much less address or refute) the arguments that I, Soltras and OC31113 have made. Your simplistic argument is based on the premise that the [[community, city, state]] convention is a good one and should be followed by all articles about communities that are part of cities. From that premise, of course it follows that the La Jolla article should be named accordingly. What you keep ignoring are all the points and arguments that refute the premise of your argument, and you just keep repeating your argument based on the premise, without defending the premise (except noting that a "majority" supports the convention - never mind why). I am not going to repeat all those points and arguments just so that you will ignore them again. --Serge 14:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Serge, I answered you point for point above, and treated even questions you did not address me with.

I'm looking at this as objectively as possible - the whole point of my answering the WP:RFC. What I see is simple: After what seems to be years of shuffling and experimentation, US Wiki contributors have become overwhelmingly in favour of a [[Community, City, State]] naming convention, and it is for this that it is in use everywhere. But here we have at least one irreducible contributor who refuses to acknowledge that 'exempting' an article from this rule will in using his own [[Community, State]] convention will create [[City]] confusion, and this because he refuses to acknowledge the [[Community, City, State]] convention itself.

If you hope to win what looks from here to be quite a personal battle, you're going to have to overturn the [[Community, City, State]] consensus, no matter how autistic you think they are (yes, I did a little reading : ) But no matter, because if the consensus is as small and weak as you imply, then you should have no problem garnering consensus for your point of view. I wish you all the best. thepromenader 18:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a personal battle. The point of my arguments is to hopefully persuade others, who are moved by logic and reason, to join me. Above, you did respond point for point, with words, words that most often, yes, answered questions that were not even asked. My point is that you often ignored what was asked. You mostly ignored the points that were made, and just repeated your same argument. Your 2nd paragraph above is yet another repeat of this one and only tired and syllogistic argument based on the same old premise. Finally, in your 3rd paragraph above you indicate you might be catching on. That's great. When you're ready to join us in the professionalizing of Wikipedia names in the area of U.S. city and community names, to be consistent with the professional naming conventions already utilized in most if not all other areas in Wikipedia, and to be consistent with how every other professional publication (encyclopedias, newspapers, magazines, books, etc.) references city and community names, let me know. It's going to be a big job, and we would appreciate all the assistance we can get. Thanks. --Serge 18:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It became a personal battle when attacks and name-calling a la "mild autistics" appeared. Totallypostal 19:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think my point was clear. The folks arguing for the name of every U.S. community article to be named in triple, CommunityName, CityName, StateName, only argument is syllogistic and based on an irrational adoration for the ability to name this particular group of articles in a consistent fashion which virtually guarantees no ambiguities, as if that's a problem that needs solving, no matter how ridiculous and unconventional the names turn out to be. Pardon me, but if the shoe fits... --Serge 14:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up a few sentences in this section, but the section needs references and additional information (when did the rope go up and when did it go down). If someone knows the full history of the Children's Pool and the seals, it would be nice to have that history added to the article. Orayzio 20:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As La Jolla, California is serviced by a post office using La Jolla, California, I feel that the article is appropriately La Jolla, California. --Jon Cates 02:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The USPS does not use "La Jolla, California". They describe the post office serving several ZIP codes as "LA JOLLA, CA". The USPS does not determine what we call communities. -Will Beback 04:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether the USPS uses "La Jolla, California", "LA JOLLA, CA", or "Tim Buk Tu" for the La Jolla zip codes is not relevant to how we name this article in Wikipedia. What is relevant is that the USPS does not use "SAN DIEGO, CA" for these zip codes, as it does for all other community zip codes in San Diego. It serves as evidence that this community is normally, commonly and regularly referred to as La Jolla. --Serge 14:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it provides even more conclusive evidence that the USPS often ignores city names and boundaries in its ZIP Code methodology. While an argument can be made that the USPS bases its methodology on how the public actually references place names, a much stronger argument can be made for the opposite hypothesis -- that the public bases its references to place names on the omnipresent, pseudo-official methodology imposed by the Postal Service. After all, the mail is delivered every day, while contact with one's local government or observations of other indicators (maps showing city boundaries, city limit signs, etc.) occur sporadically, if ever. One only needs to see a few instances of "SAN DIEGO, CA 920XX" and "LA JOLLA, CA 920XX" before one concludes that San Diego and La Jolla are separate entities. Once that impression is made, it directly follows that "normal", "common" and "regular" references to La Jolla will be made as if it is not part of San Diego. Totallypostal 15:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This subject of this article is a community. The name of this community is not La Jolla, California. The name of this community is definitely not La Jolla, San Diego, California. The name of the city that the community is in is San Diego. The name of the state that the community is in California. All this is made clear where it should be: in the text of the article, in the first sentence as a matter of fact. But the name of the community is La Jolla. The USPS usage simply confirms that, as does every other printed and online encyclopedia. Therefore, because the name of the subject of this article is La Jolla, and because there is no ambiguity issue (La Jolla redirects to this page), the name of this article should be simply, La Jolla. The CommunityName, CityName, StateName "convention" needs to be ignored because it is inconsistent with every naming convention in Wikipedia, including community naming conventions used in other countries, and also naming conventions used in other encyclopedias. The idea of overloading the name part of an article to also have political context information, which belongs in the text, not the name, is odd, unconventional, inconsistent, unprofessional and creates absurd article names. Enough already. --Serge 20:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You have repeatedly raised your objection to this naming scheme and the preponderance of editors have repeatedly affirmed it. The project is not furthered by expending thousands of words on the manner of naming this and other communities. The purpose of a convention is to provide a standard for editors so that they don't waste time debating between "city", "city, state", "city (state)", "city (county)", etc. on an article-by-article basis. There is nothing unprofessional about having standards. On the contrary, having no standard would be unprofessional and lead to inconsistency. Consistency is a desirable property in an encyclopedia. Let's stop the endless debate already. -Will Beback 22:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Will, I respect you and your work on Wikipedia. But on this issue, frankly, I'm surprised at your position. I just can't understand how someone as intelligent and reasonable as you obviously are could defend the view that you do. All I can say is as long as you guys keep imposing the unconventional U.S. city and community "conventions" on the readers, I and others will continue to point out how harmful it is to Wikipedia. As long as you guys keep repeating the same syllogistic argument, I and others are going to keep refuting it. It would be very unrealistic to expect anything else.

Once again you repeat the purpose of your particular unconventional "convention" which is in direct violation of Wikipedia policy: provide a standard for editors. What about the readers who are supposed to be our first priority?

The vast majority of U.S. city and community names have no ambiguity issues. Clearly, for each and every one of those, including La Jolla, the article name should simply be the city or community name, period. That would be consistent with every other Wikipedia article name. For the small but still significant minority where there is an ambiguity issue, fine, create a standard. But, if consistency is really a value here, then the disambiguation method should be consistent with the method utilized for every other page in Wikipedia: put it in parentheses after the name... e.g., Portland (Oregon) and Portland (Maine). But pulling some oddball format out of a hat, creating original names like La Jolla, San Diego, California, and Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, is not Wikipedian nor encyclopedic by any stretch. Surely, you can see this. --Serge 04:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I see Serge's point. This convention in use at Wiki is awkward. I would support a change in this convention. However, as the convention appears to be the "law of the land", so to speak, the article should be consistent with other articles of its type. It may be simply easier to have the article title simply be "La Jolla" and mention it's affilliation with San Diego in the very first sentence. If there is another La Jolla, or community of note, we could always add a simple disambiguation tag to the article. Ramsquire 00:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well stated. The predicament is a classic chicken-egg situation. Because articles abide by it, it's the convention. Because of the convention, articles, like this one, are supposed to abide by it. The only way I can see to break the cycle is one exception at a time, until the convention is arguably no longer the convention. But, for now, the gang that defends the convention seems to be big enough to out number the small number of people who care enough to make an exception out of any one particular article, like this one. A dilemma. --Serge 01:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, judging by your last straw poll, there isn't support for making an exception of this article either. -Will Beback 04:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, mostly thanks to the same gang of suspects who promote original names for communities. But, that was back in June. Reason and logic eventually prevail. It just requires patience. --Serge 04:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

While I strongly disagree with Serge's apparent quest to completely overturn the U.S. cities naming convention, I think there may be room to consider a better convention for naming neighborhoods within incorporated municipalites. Personally I'd rather see La Jolla, San Diego or La Jolla, California or even La Jolla (San Diego) rather than La Jolla, San Diego, California. But I do think we should have some better consistency than what we currently have. For example, currently in Category:Cincinnati neighborhoods there are six different formats to the names. For example, Mount Washington (Cincinnati), Mill Creek Township, Hamilton County, Ohio, Clifton, Cincinnati, Ohio, Clifton Heights, Ohio, Winton Place, Cincinnati and Over-the-Rhine. In contrast, New York City neighborhoods are, with only a few exceptions, uniformly named using a Neighborhood, Borough format. Category:Chicago neighborhoods are mostly named as Neighborhood, Chicago. At this point I'm not sure what to suggest. While I generally like the Place, State form for cities, towns, villages, and unincorporated communities (plus a few other miscellaneous types), that doesn't seem quite right for neighborhoods within incorporated municipalities. The Neighborhood, City form is workable, but it does look a little odd to me, perhaps mostly because the comma-separated form is most familiar from postal usage, where it is always Place, State (not Place, larger Place). For neighborhoods, I'm almost inclined to advocate a form like Neighborhoodname (Cityname neighborhood), for example La Jolla (San Diego neighborhood). older ≠ wiser 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

older ≠ wiser , I belive you may have come up with the solution. I like the idea of Neighborhood (City/Borough name neighborhood). Considering no one has ever thought of Hollywood, as Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, or La Jolla as La Jolla, San Diego, California, your idea makes the most sense, and would conform to the general view of these neighborhoods. I would support your idea being the new and improved convention. Ramsquire 17:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support just about any disambiguation convention of the form, Name (disambiguation information). However,

• I think it's important to not compromise an article title with disambiguation information when there is no ambiguity problem to be solved (talk about a solution looking for a problem...).
• The disambiguation information used to solve an ambiguity problem should be relevant to the particular problem. For example, if we were disambiguating with a car named La Jolla, then I would expect the car article to be something like La Jolla (car) and this article to be La Jolla (community). If we were disambiguating from another geographic place with the same name, then, and only then, would I expect more specific geographic information to be used to disambiguate. But when the SimpleName title redirects to the CompromisedName title, it seems to me the redirection is going in the wrong direction.

--Serge 17:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)