Talk:Victorian Downtown Los Angeles

Layout

The layout for this page is certainly interesting, but I am wondering if it might be too complicated. What do others think? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I like it. Seems to flow. Really interesting images of Los Angeles. Ericmalibu 10:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I know of no other article which adopts this layout. It's very bulky, and looks more like historical travel guide than an encycloedic article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The historical images are too large (e.g. this courthouse image and its northern image neighbor, both rendered at 430px) to allow for any meaningful rendition of the vertical street names, in this case, Broadway. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I like the large pictures. Most people nowadays are visually oriented and go for the pics. I also like the grid layout of the streets because it shows a clean relationship between the interest sites. Ericmalibu 17:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The block-by-block layout is unique and no doubt User:Keizers put a lot of effort into creating it. Unfortunately, it is a bit confusing and difficult to navigate. Moreover, many of Wikipedia's readers access the site using mobile devices, where the current layout is incomprehensible (some of the points at MOS:IMAGES specifically address this issue). To improve the article's layout, I would recommend:

• The layout be returned to this version (no table).
• Per MOS:IMAGES: the number of images be culled, the placement of images be right-aligned where possible, and image sizes be reduced to 220px.
• Sections with just a few lines of text and a photo should be separated from the next section by {{Clear}} or {{Clear|left}}. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

At first, it seemed fine with me, but then I was getting confused. I think the layout either needs another method or should return to normal, like Magnolia677 said. —MonkeyStolen234 (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The images are too large, are are stacked up over one another, and it indeed looks like a travel guide more than a Wikipedia article. I think the layout should be reverted back to normal, or something else should be tried out. Danloud (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this version is the one that we should use. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree the above version is much more comprehensible. MB 23:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m looking at it on an iPad and the proposed BeenAroundAWhile version really flows top to bottom. Ericmalibu 01:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

On the positive side: In this new version, I can see where the Wilson block actually is within the street grid. I also see that Los Angeles High was once located between Temple and Franklin, and that the LA Times was on the next block south. This new version gives me a sense of placement...For me, that is valuable.

Unfortunately though, I have to agree with BeenAroundAWhile and MonkeyStolen234...If you have to look at the layout and think about it - rather than immediately "get it"....then there is a problem.

Is there a hybrid version - one that keeps at the first graphic map of the entire area, but would revert back to a standard layout after that? All the significant buildings mentioned in the article would be listed by name in that one map (with hyperlinks - if possible - to take the reader to sections of the article to read about each block/building). In that way, the reader can understand placement within the city, but have a easier time reading the article. Phatblackmama (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

If it doesn't scale very well for the mobile user then it should not be on Wikipedia. MOS:IMGSIZE says "Except with very good reason, a fixed width in pixels should not be specified." It says we should use a scaling factor for size, which would ruin the careful layout of streets. So we must determine whether the street grid layout is a "very good reason" to go against the general image accessibility guideline. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reply: here goes:

1. I absolutely love the historical content here and it should absolutely be preserved and improved.
2. I applaud the person who put the work in here to create a novel layout (it took me some effort to figure it out). It's creative and a great example of trying to improve Wikipedia with new ideas.
3. For someone walking the neighborhood, this would be an interesting street guide style historical reference.
4. However while giving kudos to Keizers, I absolutely HATE this layout. It's awkward. It's hard to edit. It's an accessibility nightmare. And while novel, it's unnecessary to convey the information.
5. Just in case this gets lost in the above: It's an accessibility nightmare. I tried this in JAWS and it wasn't useful; I can't imagine any other screen reader doing better. If someone depends on screen magnification or turns off images, it's going to be difficult to tell what you're looking at and someone might very well assume it's just a mess before they figure it out, but it does get a bit better in high contrast white on black.
6. I can't really comment on mobile, but I imagine it's not good. I can't see how this meets WP:MOS.

It really does pain me to see work that someone obviously in good faith put a lot of effort into, but this is just a failed but worthwhile experiment. Based on WP:ACCESSIBILITY alone it should be returned to this version. Thanks to BeenAroundAWhile for pinging me.   // Timothy :: talk  19:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

PS >> BeenAroundAWhile, it occurs to me when the Central Library is safe to return to, this article is a rich source of potential articles on Los Angeles history.   // Timothy :: talk 

Hello, Timothy, Phatblackmama, BeenAroundAWhile and others -- this is the person who created the article in both the older and newer layouts, I did not know this conversation was taking place; that would have been nice to know. I am really happy that so many people are taking an interest and seeing value in the article. I can try a third way of layout that incorporates a grid or a map- type sense of the layout, while incorporating the concerns about mobile access. (Sorry, I thought I had done so, but admittedly my cellphone screen is more than 1000px wide) I think it's of extreme value to see where buildings were in relationship to each other, street by street and block by block (also the intersections). That's part of the essence of describing the place, because it is more than just the sum of the buildings listed in a linear fashion. Keizers (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Everybody interested in this page should put it AND THE TALK PAGE on their "like" list. Just click the star at the top of the page and keep checking your list from time to time. You can also sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Los Angeles area task force and check in there whenever you feel like it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

BeenAroundAWhile, it is unusual that you didn't put something on my personal Talk page. Of course I have this page in my Watchlist but I don't check my Watchlist everyday. Putting it on my talk page generates an email to my actual email. It's what I'm accustomed to others doing. Whatever, water under the bridge, just a constructive suggestion. What do you think of the layout now? Keizers (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Layout Take Three

Hi, I have updated the article in a way that it still goes in a geographic order but removes the counterintuitive (?) navigation in grid format, and which should be readable on mobile devices. The article is still purposefully full of images, the simplest way to say why is that they are necessary to understand what the Central Business District of that time "was"...how it looked and what the collection of buildings all together constituted in terms of style and the size of the CBD - especially since absolutely nothing remains of it. The WP guidelines against photo-heavy or gallery-heavy pages are not hard and fast rules and allow exceptions when they make sense. Aligning the photos right did not look good on desktop, and I don't think any great damage will come from reft alignment, which looks much better. I hope this new attempt addresses most concerns, and look forward to feedback.Keizers (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to the layout now as long as it makes sense to you. I will be putting on my green eyeshade and grabbing a big black pencil to do some editing for ease of reading and consistency. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

BeenAroundAWhile, how does the green eyeshade help? Haha, is that some kind of reference to fashion in the 1890s? Keizers (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Keizers, I miss the graphic map you had in this version [1]. I find it much more helpful than the two side-by-side map images. They give me nothing. They don't relate to each other in sizing, so it is difficult to see the changes between them. Nor do they show building placement. I much prefer your graphic map with easy-to-read street names and building placement. And also...I didn't say this earlier...that that first revision was an amazing effort. Bravo. Phatblackmama (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Phatblackmama, but it seemed like a consensus that graphic maps were not "intuitive" and doing it using Wikitable would be a "maintenance nightmare". Maybe the objection was to the larger table that included the photos. I will bring it back per your suggestion and if the consensus is that it, too, should go the way of the old business district and disappear forever, so be it.Keizers (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

::::Please, no photos. They make the page look really cluttered & we really need just the bare layout to visualize the location of all these structures; that is, how they relate to each other as well as the juxtaposition of the streets, both existing and former. Best, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC) The user can click on a wikilink to get a picture of the building and its description. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Title of the article

During the time period we are talking about, there was no "Central Business District"; there was only a single business district for the entire city, so I propose moving (renaming) the article to Los Angeles business district of the 1880s through 1890s. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I prefer keeping "central", there term CBD I do think makes it more instinctively understandable as to the types of businesses there being the large stores and institutions, wehereas "business district" on its own does sound like a generic term. There were grocery and food businesses in clusters in outlying areas at the horsecar/streetcar stops, though no one would have called them a business "district" whereas we might call them that today ("neighborhood business district" or some such). For example, look at the corner business cluster at First and Cummings in 1890 in Boyle Heights (where my great-grandfather would later cut hair!) Another example - Ralphs opened in 1873 at 6th & Spring, which was an outlying residential area at the time. As for the time period, I find that particular structure wordy "from–to", perhaps a stylistic preference as I think 1880s–1890s you also instantly "get it" rather than have to process it.Keizers (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I too prefer the current naming convention, for reasons cited above. I also noticed that, when searching Wikipedia for Los Angeles Central Business District, it re-directed to present-day downtown. I have removed that redirect and made it a disambiguation page listing both Central Business District, Los Angeles (1880s-1890s) and Downtown Los Angeles. (If there are more pages covering the downtown history, that would be great.) Phatblackmama (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I was about to go to the mat, insisting that "Central Business District" was a modern term, but then I checked Newspapers.com and found the earliest use was in 1858! And it was in fairly common use during the 1870s. So . . . never mind! I sit corrected. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Business center

I made a comprehensive check of Newspapers.com and found that the business area of DTLA was almost always referred to as the business center during this period. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Business center 2

Hi, Just wondering if images are really necessary to illustrate that the area was called the business center, that was a generic term and the images don’t really help identify that area as the business center. This may be better at doing so, if it’s felt a source is needed: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/59112017/business-section-moving-south-tunnel/ Keizers (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I just took it out. I'm not satisfied with it either. Cheers. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

No Bradbury Building?

Can we at least get the Bradbury building into the page, considering it is such a landmark? BeenAroundAWhile (talk)

BeenAroundAWhile, sure. I should probably explain at this point that my original idea for this page was to cover the geographic district that is now the officially defined Civic Center district, which happens to be almost exactly the business district in the 1880s. Therefore NOT including 3rd Street as that is part of the officially defined Historic Core district today. The Bradbury Building was built in 1893, and that was considered away from the business center at that time, but by the later 1890s 3rd Street was in the business district, if I read the article I posted in the section immediately above this one. I am happy to extend the map and article to 3rd. This is because I believe the article does not exactly have to match any current official district, but rather as its title states, the business district of the 1880s-90s. I should also mention I am thinking of ways to better present a map of then vs now, to improve on the two side by side maps there now. But how to do so in a way that someone else can easily edit such a map?

I also would like to create a consistent format for mentioning buildings (name, year built, architect, style, demolition date, replaced by). It's all over the place right now. Keizers (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Couple of points: Don't try to cram too much into the text. What is valuable about this page (I see now) is it shows the reader the relationship between buildings of the previous era and the structures there today. Anything more is overkill: Who designed it, who was the tenant, when it was torn down, etc., is just too much to absorb (and more than the reader wants). The clutter would defeat the purpose of the map and the street grid.

As for the Bradbury and similar historic structures south of Third, perhaps a simple list would serve below the street grid. Later today, after I do some shopping, I'll look over what you've just added and then try to show you what I have in mind. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how far south of Third you wish to go, the articles on Broadway and Spring streets basically cover that area. I did a lot of work on the Broadway article including a grid, and eventually could apply the principles from this page to that page.Keizers (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime, here an essay I found pertinent. Wikipedia:Too much detail. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I meant a format for such information in the body of the text, not in the graphic map. In the map, I think sometimes the dates are relevant, especially when there were multiple buildings on the same site, or to show how in some cases the notable building was built before 1880 or after 1899.Keizers (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I was disappointed that you edited out the information that I added about the area extending west to Broadway and down to Third (thus, the location of the Bradbury Building) through the 1890s. Perhaps it warrants some explanation. If the article is about what constituted the business district, then Third and Broadway WAS the southern end of that by mid-1890s. (If however the article is strictly about the territory of today's Civic Center district, then no. - but then we should be consistent. I prefer including the area down to Third St.) The information had a very good source, and indeed that phenomenon of migration came up a lot in the newspapers of the day. (Many wanted to remove the hills west of the original core, so that the old downtown around First and Spring could expand in that direction, and that older area would thus strengthen. Instead, what they feared, happened, which was a southward migration and then around the corner along 7th Street).Keizers (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Abbreviations

Please don't use a surfeit of abbreviations. Wikipedia is supposed to be read as text, not puzzled over. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, especially in the graphic map it seemed natural to me that we should try to conserve space, and to me abbreviations such as "St.", "Bldg.", and "Dept." are comprehensible to all, and certainly common on maps; HQ and a.k.a. I guess I can understand are not instantly familiar to all; however should we adhere to some style guide on this, as between you and me our instincts seem to differ? Keizers (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't use instincts. I use the proper forms of written English. I've been editing for more than sixty years, and you were fortunate to have me look over this stuff. Every writer needs an editor, so I hope this article finds another good one. I enjoyed the job 'cause I used to work in the Times Building, and I, like you, am intimately familiar with DTLA, in the old days. (I enjoyed watching the wastebaskets being emptied from the upper floors on Broadway during V-J Day and being part of the crowd celebrating.) P.S. I linked this page to many others. Click on "What Links Here" in the table at left. Best wishes. Just don't put down anything that you don't have good sources for, or somebody will revert it. Or SHOULD, anyway. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

BeenAroundAWhile, I'm sorry if I somehow offended you or upset you. I am grateful for the work you have put into the edits here, and now that I see your career history, am all the more impressed. I used the work "instinct" only in the sense of the way that we write or edit from experience, with usage that we have learned or assumed is correct. In my case this includes the use of "St." for street in the body of an article, which I now see is not 100% desirable. "Proper forms of written English" do change over time but importantly also with context, especially in something like a map. As a prolific creator of content, but without a career history of journalism or writing (other than for business), I do need guidelines. I found something here and I intend to check the more established style guides as well. Best regards.Keizers (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Images

Oh, my goodness. I definitely understand why the article was tagged as "too many pictures". It took a bit just to have the page load.

If someone really wants to see a LOT of images, they can click on the commons link. If they want to see a larger version of the image, just click on the image.

I am going to start making changes with the goal of removing the maintenance tag and to be in compliance with guidelines for WP:Images. Any thoughts or input is welcome as I move along. –CaroleHenson (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I mostly did tweaks so that the images don't overwhelm the page, but it's so much better that way. I also cropped some raggedy edges images. Another option is to set up a table for the images... or perhaps a table per section, so that this is standard image size and plenty of room for wording (which still is a problem with long captions).–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Victor Clothing - Anthony Quinn Mural 2019.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• New United States Court House Los Angeles 350 W First St.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)