Talk:Thomas Guide

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Maps Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article had an importance automatically assigned to it. Once it has been checked by a human, please remove `\|autoi=yes`.

California: Los Angeles / San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Orphaned[edit]

This was orphaned. Since it is useful in LA, I added it there. But if someone deletes that reference, then this article should go.Ancheta Wis 18:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

POV[edit]

Flagged POV due to heavily biased "history" section. It sounds more like an angry ex-employee writing about the demise of the company rather than an objective history.71.193.127.169 (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

Editors agreed that this topic does not relate to making changes to this article and that a better forum might be Talk:List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
Cunard (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Should the Thomas Guides for cities be used to delineate neighborhood boundaries? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent TG I had (for Los Angeles) did not draw neighborhood boundaries, but it seemed to me that the labels for the neighborhoods were simply placed in the location where the neighborhood existed. Thus, I think you could use a TG for the general location of a neighborhood by identifying the streets under or near the label but could not use it for boundaries. I sometimes used the phrase "(Name of neighborhood) is centered on (streets)." Or, you could say "(Name of neighborhood) lies roughly west of Western Avenue and south of Pico Boulevard," but I think you have to hedge with "roughly." BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a guide about neighborhoods? There are so many definitions with people arguing for the right one. As with many items, it depends on the purpose: City and county planners divide the city up differently then the police. Historical districts often identify a neighborhood. Nextdoor allows the residents to decide what is their neighborhood. Editors have started using google maps for some neighborhoods, it will show a boundary (like it does for cities, counties, etc.). I wince when editors use google maps as a source since one has no idea how the algorithm decided on that particular boundary. Fettlemap (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Thomas Guide should not be used delineate boundaries. Obviously, (1) it does not mark boundaries. And (2), even a broad statement, like such-and-such neighborhood is centered on a certain street, would be problematic as illustrated by the example below:

Please view this page in the Thomas Guide [1]. Look at the placement of the name "Little Tokyo". The name is centered on Alameda Street. However, Little Tokyo is west of Alameda Street and the The Arts District is east of Alameda. The name "Little Tokyo" is clearly not centered on the correct neighborhood; it overlaps into an entirely different neighborhood.

The only use I see for a Thomas Guide citation would be something very broad, such as: Little Tokyo is a neighborhood is Los Angeles [Thomas guide citation]. Adjacent neighborhoods include Chinatown. [Thomas guide citation]. But anything more specific - such as "Little Tokyo is centered on Alameda Street" - would be guesswork. And in this case, a wrong guess.Phatblackmama (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are we doing discussing a topic that doesn't relate to this ARTICLE in any way on this article's talk page? This RfC in its entirety is an almost definitive WP:NOTFORUM violation. You are discussing a qualitative value of the SUBJECT of the article, and the result of this discussion will not result in any change to THIS article. C'mon, people: If you had an issue with content regarding letterbombs across multiple articles, would you discuss it on the Post Office's article's talk page? John from Idegon (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be moved to List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles talk page? (editor is a volunteer for Wikipedia:Feedback request service) --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Fettlemap (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this should be procedurally closed and collapsed, and a new discussion started at WT:WikiProject United States or in the alternative, a thread started at WP:RSN. Framed as it is it doesn't just affect LA articles. John from Idegon (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the topic is broader than LA. Fettlemap (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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