Talk:Anaheim Hills/Archive 1

Changes

I removed the following because these "facts" werew unverifiable (or at least i couldn't verify them)

• However, Anaheim Hills enjoys the lowest crime rate in the city and one of the lowest in Orange County. Violent crime is virtually non-existent; however, drug problems and petty theft remain as minor issues.

• However, the local high school has decreased in prestige over the last few years mainly to drug problems and the loss of the top students to other school districts, namely Troy High School in the Fullerton Joint Unified High School District (FJUHSD). While the local elementary and middle schools are excellent, Canyon High has failed to meet the standards of a school in such an excellent community.

• Anaheim Hills has excellent places for shopping, most notably the Festival Center in east Anaheim Hills. Other places of interest include Oak Canyon Nature Center, Knowlwood (Voted the Best Hamburger restaurant in Orange County), two movie theaters, an excellent public library, and an excellent choice of foods, including Macaroni Grill, Mandarin Taste, Hibachi Steakhouse, and Wood Ranch BBQ and Grill. In 'n Out and Chipotle appear to be the current trends in fast food.

• Anaheim Hills has a reputation of being a quiet and safe, yet exciting place to live. It is an excellent place to live whether you are a teenager or senior citizen. Another plus is that the weather is generally excellent except for a few days in the summer when it can get above 100. The temperature almost never goes under freezing, and snow hasn't fallen in many decades.

I also added the references section, cited a couple of things, and added a link to a map of the area. In light of these changes, i have removed the POV tag. Not sure who originally wrote this article, but it really did read like a tourism ad.--Alex 20:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

POV!

I added POV tag, someone keeps adding blatant POV lines to the article such as "However, the local high school has decreased in prestige over the last few years mainly to drug problems and the loss of the top students to other school districts, namely Troy High School in the Fullerton Joint Unified High School District (FJUHSD). While the local elementary and middle schools are excellent, Canyon High has failed to meet the standards of a school in such an excellent community."--Alex 19:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be easier to just ditch the tag and remove the contributions. If they are uncited, they don't belong in the article at all. --Hetar 08:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, this article reaks of self-promotion. Was it written by the Anaheim Hills Chamber of Commerce?

It defnitely reads that way! I've made changes in the past that just get removed the next day so i'm not really sure if there's anything i can do to improve the page, as someone seems to have an interest in making sure the page continues to read like a travel brocure. I'm somewhat new here, is there a standard way of dealing with such issues? Actually, at the very moment it looks like someone has cleaned it up...--Alex 22:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who "cleaned it up", but I did so with a very broad stroke by reverting back to the version before 71.144.105.17 (talk • contribs) and Ericsaindon2 (talk • contribs) ever touched the article (same person, I suspect). I did so after User:Will Beback pointed out the situation with this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Southern California. I honestly didn't see any way to separate the verifiable from the fluff without massive effort. At that point, our booster probably will have added back all the crap we remove. Someone should probably tell the user about verifiablity, sourcing, etc, but their agenda seems so obvious that I doubt they'd pay any mind. Mike Dillon 01:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes (May 2006)

I changed the Anaheim Hills section from the junk written by Mike Dillon. Its apparent he has never been to Anaheim Hills. And I was not the original writer when it was in a Travel Brochure state. I think that these changes are fair and unbiased, and actually make sense, if you have ever been to Anaheim Hills. Stop changing it back to the original text because that text was poorly written! Ericsaindon2 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for starting to add references for some of your additions. However, links to plain websites like http://www.census.gov and http://www.dataquick.com are not really sufficient. You should try to reference an actual publication or URL. Mike Dillon 18:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, all you have to do is look at the edit history to see that I didn't write anything substantial in this article. Mike Dillon 18:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The only way we can be sure that it is "fair and unbiased" is if you cite your sources properly. As it is, it seems to be pushing the point of view that Anaheim Hills is so much better and different than the parent city of Anaheim (with a tone that smacks of bias to me). It's possible the sources support most of the "data points", but we can't know unless the sources can be reviewed. Mike Dillon 02:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"City" of Anaheim Hills

Editors who repeatedly add references to the fictitious "city" of Anaheim Hills are effectivly vandalising this encyclopedia by adding untrue information. There is no seal of this non-existent city. There is no mayor. Anaheim Hills is a neighborhod of the city of Anaheim, and nothing more than that. I'm sure it's a fine neighborhood, but it is not a city. -Will Beback 19:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't just the seal. The map is also fictitious since there is no reference given for the official boundaries of this neighborhood. Without an official reference, we have know way of knowing whether the boundaries of Anaheim Hills were made up by the uploader. The page really should not have {{Infobox City}} and it definitely should not be in Category:Cities in Orange County, California. Mike Dillon 01:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added the {{disputed}} tag to this article because of the amount of revert warring going on in the last day. Readers have a right to know that this article could be changing under their feet and cannot be trusted until the disputes are resolved and things settle down. Mike Dillon 01:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then stop changing its contents. It is all factual, and why should I need to prove that there is a shopping center in Anaheim Hills. I LIVE THERE FOR GOD SAKE, ISNT THAT ENOUGH PROOF. It wouldnt be so disruptive and disputed if you just stopped trying to defy me, so go on to pick a fight with some other innocent Wikipedia user about their article because your unnecessary criticism is really getting old.-EricSaindon2

No, that isn't enough "proof". I'm afraid we'll have to keep "defying" you until you can sort out your references and pro-Anaheim Hills chauvinism. Mike Dillon 02:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You may want to sign your comments using ~~~~. It helps others follow the timing of the discussion and its participants. Mike Dillon 02:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

City tag for non-city

I removed the "city seal"; Anaheim Hills is not a city. Antandrus (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Summary of disputes

Since I ended up intimately involved in the disputes over this article that I don't really care about, I thought I'd summarize the situation:

1. Back in April, somebody started adding paragraphs upon paragraphs of unsourced, biased material to this article. User:Will Beback, a Wikipedia adminstrator involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California posted a "heads-up" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Southern California#Anaheim Hills, California. Will asked for help from the project's editors with "archeological" editing, so I put it on my watchlist. After looking at the article, I made the bold decision to revert all of the changes instead of putting {{fact}} everywhere.
2. After a month passed, Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) showed up and started making more unsourced additions to the article. I'm not sure if he was involved in the original changes, but he has a habit of switching between editing anonymously and logged-in; see the most recent IP edits: 69.232.54.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I reverted his changes as original research and for the lack of citing sources. Despite what User:Ericsaindon2 has said elsewhere, this was unrelated to sourcing the "location of a store" but was related to two paragraphs of unsourced demographic information.
3. After I reverted three times (before violating 3RR myself), I put a note on User:Will Beback's talk page since he was an admin with knowledge of the situation. I added {{unreferenced}} and {{cleanup-tone}} to the article, but I didn't revert anything else until the next day. Ericsaindon2 reverted my changes and vandalized my userpage by adding the same two templates to my page.
4. After another admin (User:Zzyzx11) got involved, I eventually added {{disputed}} and put a note on the talk page. Ericsaindon2 reverted this again and vandalized my userpage with that template.

I basically haven't made any other edits since, leaving the situation to admins. I did add {{fact}} to the "Location in Orange County" claim in the infobox since the map does not make clear what the source of the official boundaries shown on the map are (I believe they were made up).

My fundamental objections are:

1. Unsourced demographic information attempting to support the biased opinion that the neighborhood of Anaheim Hills is "better" than the surrounding city of Anaheim. User:Ericsaindon2 added links to the article that were intended to be references, but they were actually plain domain names, not full URLs.
2. The fake "city seal" for Anaheim Hills, created by User:Ericsaindon2 (Image:Ahills.jpg and Image:Ahills65.jpg). This "seal" claims a 2007 incorporation/foundation date for the fake "city". There was an earlier fake city seal claiming a 2006 date that was created in April during the first round of problems with this article (probably by the same user).
3. The inclusion of this article in Category:Cities in Orange County, California, when it is not an incorporated city.
4. The use of {{Infobox City}}, a template intended for use only with incorporated cities.
5. The use of {{Orange County, California}}, a template used only on the county's article and the pages of incorporated cities in the county. Until a week or two ago, it was called {{Cities of Orange County, California}}.

All of these things lead readers to think that "Anaheim Hills" is its own city, not a neighborhood of Anaheim, California. I hope this explains my position clearly. Feel free to ask any question here or on my talk page. Mike Dillon 05:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Mike Dillon has correctly summarized the matter, and I agree with his objections. There are many facts that we can write about the district of Anaheim Hills, but we mustn't go beyond what is factual. That includes obfuscate its political situation. Should the neighborhood secede then we can decribe it as a city, until then it is a zipcode, a neighborhood. Intentionally inserting false information is either vandalism or, more politely, hoaxing. Either way it has no place in the project. But factual matters aside, Wikipedia has standards and procedural norms that've been disregarded. Edit warring will not be tolerated. This is a collaborative project and no one may insist that we must rely on their special knowledge as a reference. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -Will Beback 08:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Page move

This page was moved from Anaheim Hills, California to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California and back again. When it was first moved, double redirects were fixed, but when it was moved back they were not. I propose that this page be moved back to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California to agree with commonly accepted naming for neighborhoods of U.S. cities. If that doesn't happen, the double redirects should be fixed to point to the current name, Anaheim Hills, California. Mike Dillon 02:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the page being moved to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. Not only is this consistent with other pages, but it removes the impression that Anaheim Hills is a fully distinct area. Adambiswanger1 13:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

This is an informal straw poll to see what the support is for moving this page from Anaheim Hills, California to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. Support means you want to rename the page to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, Oppose means you want to keep it named Anaheim Hills, California. If you want to move it somewhere else besides the listed option, please vote Oppose. Let's try not to move the article for a few days (at least until User:Ericsaindon2 is unblocked and has a chance to contribute).

• Support Mike Dillon 14:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Adambiswanger1 14:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Denvoran 15:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Soltras 16:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This user is recruiting people to this talk page to try and tally up the votes referencing his/her point of view. I dont think that these contacts that would have otherwise been uninformed and unaccounted for should be able to vote, becasue he isnt collecting anyone that represents all the views, just his own. --Ericsaindon2 04:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Never mind. I have tried to delete this comment, but due to the instigation that Mike Dillon keeps putting on every little issue about Anaheim Hills, I have been unable to take this accidental comment off. At first I thought that he was recruiting people, but I have cleared it up, and he was just informing another party of the *issue. At first I thought he was telling uninformed people to just simply sign their name for an issue that they knew nothing about, but I really made an accidental mistake in my representation of what this user was truely doing, and I am sorry. I would take this comment off the page if Mike Dillon didnt keep reinserting it (with the intent to start another quarell like this page doesnt have enough of those)--Ericsaindon2 04:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • This isn't true. Soltras contacted User:Serge Issakov, who has a known interest in this particular naming issue. Furthermore, Serge disagrees with Soltras (see "oppose" vote below) and Soltras even anticipated this in the comment you refer to. So if anything, this helped your side of this poll. This is all very funny coming from someone who likely voted three times in the other poll. Mike Dillon 04:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral

• Support If the infobox is put back onto the page, since under Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, it will state that Anaheim Hills is within Anaheim, and will remove confusion among the infobox even being there
• Decline If the infobox is not replaced since there will be no confusion over Anaheim Hills being a community, and the rule of Community, City, State is rarely enforced, and is not generally a rule --207.200.116.131 03:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral feel the same way as user:207.200.116.131 --70.237.91.134 05:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Which one of these is Eric? Anyway, Eric has repeadely supported this convention by moving articles to the "neighborhood, city, state" model. He should offere some explanation of why he does not support the same treatment for Anaheim Hills that he does for Newport Coast, Newport Beach, California. -Will Beback 20:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem here is that Eric has edited from both of these IP addresses ([1], [2]). Since the first one is an AOL address, it's possible you aren't both User:Ericsaindon2, but it would be better if you both had accounts. Mike Dillon 06:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• I have you know that the reference you are making to me is in reality not me. Now you can choose to believe me or not, but I use two names on Wikipedia, ES92808 and Ericsaindon2, so there would be no reason for me to go under an alias other than those two. Plus, my computer code when I am not logged in is different than the one presented there, so unless I was using multiple computers (which would personally be alot of hassle to just impress you people), I couldnt have multiple account/computer numbers --70.237.91.134 07:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The first edit I referenced was a response from 70.237.91.134 (in the first person) to something I said to User:Ericsaindon2. The second edit was an edit from 207.200.116.131 that was signed "-Ericsaindon2". Are you saying the two edits weren't logged-out edits from User:Ericsaindon2? Also, since your IP address is controlled by SBC (and the other one by AOL), it is presumably allocated dynamically. This means your SBC address could change occasionally, but the AOL address could change with every page edit (because of the way AOL's outbound connections work). Mike Dillon 07:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• I see what your saying. I do have AOL,that is how I was able to contact Krista Alton, the editor of that original piece that was unreferenced. A long time ago, before I created an account, I used AOL as a general Wikipedia edit place, but I quickly created a screenname after Will Beback asked me to so that confusion was avoided, so I did. And on another note, almost all of Anaheim Hills residents have SBC Global, so it would not surprise me that another anonomous user had the same ID as I started with. I am sure she will create a new account soon after Will tells her to, just like I did. --Ericsaindon2 07:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Standard naming convention for neighborhoods of cities. -Will Beback 20:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support renaming - but think Anaheim Hills would work better for simplicity Symes 02:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not oppose renaming to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, CA; however, I do think that plain Anaheim Hills is more appropriate, like Brooklyn, Downtown Louisville, SoHo, Haughville, etc Symes 12:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose renaming to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, CA. Leaving it Anaheim Hills, CA is okay, but I agree with user Symes who should have voted Oppose as well per the intructions that Anaheim Hills is the best name. The neighborhood, city, state "convention" is cumbersome, NON-STANDARD, and non-encyclopedic in appearance. I don't even like the city, state "convention", except in the case of ambiguity, for which I would prefer city (state). The common name for Anaheim Hills is, Anaheim Hills, and therefore that should be the name of the article. The first sentence makes it clear that it is not a separate city and where it is located. But the mild autistics who dominate the city naming issue for some reason keep insisting on naming conventions for the sake of convention. It's a shame. -Serge 07:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Mild autistics"? Thanks for your constructive input. Mike Dillon 14:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • All you noticed in my entire note is the little jab obviously made in jest? Sheesh! You make my point... --Serge 08:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Anaheim Hills, CA" is not "okay" because it lends the status of city to a neighborhood. Like it or not, Americans refer to cities as "city, state". Open any newspaper in the U.S., and you will read this formulation, never "city (state)". Only for the largest and most well-known cities is the "state" dropped. Shameful or not, most sub-city entities in the U.S. on Wikipedia are titled "neighborhood, city, state". There's nothing so notable or special about Anaheim Hills that the title of its Wikipedia article should appear differently. Denvoran 19:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Look up any city in any real encyclopedia and you won't see the Wikipedia original research {city, state} "convention", for good reason. You're right, Anaheim Hills should not appear differently. ALL cities and neighborhood articles should be titled by their most common name, as per Wikipedia convention (except in the case of ambiguities), like any other article, and as in any real encyclopedia. This "convention" wreaks of amateurism and is an embarrassing blight on Wikipedia. --Serge 08:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Glad we agree that neighborhood titles should be titled consistently. Good luck changing the convention that, like it or not, has been established. In the meantime, hopefully you can endure the embarrassment. Denvoran 14:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • But the name, city, state setup is stupid because it doesnt make any sense, and that is not what the communities are referred to. I would never walk up to any one and say I live in Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, I would walk up to someone ans say I live in Anaheim Hills, California. Now with just that statement, yes it might come off as if Anaheim Hills is a city, but if I do some more explaining, (like the first line of the article does) then there is no confusion. IF AN ARTICLE STATES THAT IT IS JUST A COMMUNITY IN ITS FIRST LINE THEN THERE IS NO CONFUSION, AND NO IFS ANDS OR BUTS ABOUT IT. The fact that it is a community is written all over the article, and if you couldnt figure out that it wasnt incorporated after reading this article than you just shouldnt be on an encyclopedia until you get a brain. There is no possible way that there would be any confusion, and the community, city, state setup is only a solution that would create more controversy, and is totally unnecessary. And, by the way, there are tons of communities, even in Orange County, that dont have this setup. So I dont think that it is an official rule. --70.237.91.134 04:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Brilliant arguments, 70.237.91.134 (a.k.a. Ericsaindon2). So I guess your moving "Kite Hill, California" to Kite Hill, Laguna Niguel, California, "Orange Hills" to Orange Hills, Orange, California, and "Tustin Foothills, California" to Tustin Foothills, Tustin, California, among others, are "stupid" and "dont (sp) make any sense", either? By the way, what people say in casual conversation and what should appear in an encyclopedia are often two different things. Denvoran 04:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I am just saying that using things just because they are conventional is not right. I mean we can go on forever in properly naming places, but boundaries need to stop somewhere. It is kind of obvious that Anaheim Hills is in Anaheim, (hints the name). I mean, we could truely go on forever with the proper reference to cities and places and say things like Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, United States, North America, Western Hemisphere, Earth, Milky Way Galaxy, but thats not the point, the point is that there needs to be a fine line of where to draw the line in naming conventions, and I think including Anaheim with Anaheim Hills is rediculous because it will lead to arguements of other additions to city and place names. It is totally ridiculous. And PS, my point of reference with the name changes was to show you that the title of An article, in conventional naming terms, would be nearly an entire paragraph, and the details is what the article is for, not the title. So, I dont understand how that could have been interpreted as if I liked the naming convention if I clearly have stated that I did it to prove the ridiculous point that the current naming system comes across as. --Ericsaindon2 04:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Great. So you've just admitted a violation of WP:POINT. Mike Dillon 04:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Again Mike, But out! This is not an issue involving you, and I did it because it is a convention on Wikipedia, it is not something I just pulled out of a hat and decided to make. If I didnt change the articles, I would have just continued getting bashed by you because that seems to be something you like, and do very well. --Ericsaindon2 05:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
      • No perosnal attacks. Please comment on the edits, not the editors. -Will Beback 05:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well I wouldnt get so frickin frustrated if I wasnt bashed all the time about my edits, and how publicised they are and how publicly humiliated Mike makes me feel every time I lift a finger to edit. You know, Mike, you may have the rules of Wikipedia down, but that is nothing when people feel afriad to say something to you without getting bashed or harassed, because that is what Amerca and the US is all about, free speech, and not feeling afraid or vulnerable to public attacks when you make a mistake or go against beliefs you dont agree in. --Ericsaindon2 05:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support move to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California (and would support RFC on Ericsaindon2 if someone starts one). ^BlankVerse 06:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You have no reason to have a personality conflict with me because I dont even know you. You have never edited on this page before, so how in the heck could you know that you dont like me? Just because the votes I have been making on this talk page have been Minority (but well argued and better solutionized) for the problems. You have no idea what crap I have been put through with some of the users, specifically on this talk page, so before you go and tattle to Wikipedia about me, and start yet another hate page about me, you should probably get to know me, because right now I could start the same RFC on you. Get a brain, and think for yourself with it, and stop following what I have been portrayed to look like on this site. And dont just assume that because I got irritated with someone that I was the bad guy, read some of the comments made about me to other people, and then try to walk a mile in the shoes I have been put in on Wikipedia. -Ericsaindon2

Because of the obligations of real life, I have not been editing much on the Wikipedia lately. Still, because I was the person that started the Southern California WikiProject, I have been watching over the editing of this page. The only reason that you haven't seen me edit this page is that other experienced editors have beaten me to reverting the misinformation and confusing information that has been added to the article.

The problem that I have is that you have very single-mindedly and single-handedly tried to create the impression that Anaheim Hills is an incorporated community. Among other things, you falsified a city seal for the "city" of Anaheim Hills. You continue to use unverifiable information (which makes me wonder how much of that is falsified). You have been blocked several times and generally wasted the time of several experienced editors because of your edit warring.

None of this is about whether I like you or not. It is about your editing behavior. If you don't want to edit by the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and you want to continue doing everything that you can to subvert consensus, then you deserve to have an RFC filed against you. ^BlankVerse 08:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary

This poll has been open for almost a week and no new votes have been added in three days. Reviewing the vote I see six clear "support" votes, one clear oppose, and two conditional oppose votes by IPs who are believed to be Ericsaindon2. I count that as six to two in favor of changing the title to "Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California". That is amounts to 75% in favor, a clear supermajority. If the two IPs are counted separately that is six to three, 66% in favor, which is still a two-thirds vote. -Will Beback 04:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In light of this, I will move the article to "Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California". -Will Beback 09:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Another embarrassing day for Wikipedians. Number of non-Wikipedia references to "Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California" found with google? Zero. Some encyclopedia. Making up names for articles that NOBODY outside of Wikipedia uses to refer to the subject of the article. Outrageous. Shaking my head in disbelief. I hope you guys are proud of yourselves. --Serge 01:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There is both an article at Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California (which is not registered or linked to anywhere) and then there is this one on Anaheim Hills, California. THey are the exact same articles, so whichever title you like better, look at that article (although Anaheim Hills, California is the only one that links to all cities in Orange County, and all the talk pages it was referenced in) --Ericsaindon2 01:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not really care what the article is named. But please respect Wikipedia's policies. As per WP:MM, Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history. (The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.) Thus, I had to merge back all of these edits back to this page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

again, like I said, Anaheim Hills, California and Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California are both pages with the exact same titles. Feel free to visit the one that you like the best. --70.237.91.134 02:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox City

Can someone please present an argument for including {{Infobox City}} in this article? It is an infobox intended for incorporated cities and its inclusion here leads to the mistaken impression that Anaheim Hills is a city (in case anyone missed this, it is a neighborhood in the city of Anaheim). Subtle alterations to the infobox to make it look like a neighborhood do not help matters since this infobox is usually only seen on the articles of real cities. We can wait until User:Ericsaindon2's block is done to discuss this, despite the fact that he's circumventing it with anonymous edits and a new account (User:Es92808 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). Mike Dillon 03:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that one of the IP addresses just cited an external link to the rdesk.com database. In my opinion, it is not accurate because it is giving information for a specific address in Anaheim Hills (possibly his own address) located in a neighborhood full of large mansions, tennis courts, and swimming pools - not indicative of the entire community of Anaheim Hills as a whole. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't really a source. I just put it in <ref> format to make it easier to put a real reference later. A real reference would be something that actually says the things claimed in the article, not a bunch of data. Mike Dillon 04:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not my address, that is an address of a home in Anaheim Hills, California. The statistics on the page do not reflect the address itself (for the house is worth close to $5,000,000, but refer to the 92807/92808 zip code as a whole). A small $300,000 condominium home would come up with the same price in regards to Anaheim Hills. This reference refers to ALL of the ANAHEIM HILLS area.-Ericsaindon2

Eric, would you mind addressing why you think {{Infobox City}} should be used in this article? It is quite misleading to make this article look like a city article. User:Will Beback suggested elsewhere that this may be a reason to have a specific infobox for neighborhoods that makes it clear that they are part of a city. Presumably, it would not have all the governmental stuff that make the city infobox look so "official".

Also, what is your source for the boundaries shown in the map in this article? They should be listed on the image description page (Image:Anaheimhills3.JPG), especially since they likely aren't official borders. I'm assuming you took the borders of 92807 and 92808 and eyeballed the cutoff of the 91 freeway. Mike Dillon 04:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont know how to state my source for the boundaries on the map. I enlarged the Orange County template to match a Rand Mcnally map I have of the Orange County area so that the borders matched up. Then I traced the borders and decreased the image back to normal size. I am not sure how to cite that?-Ericsaindon2

I suppose you would identify the specific Rand McNally publication (which should have an ISBN) and state something like "approximate boundaries added by User:Ericsaindon2 from Rand McNally publication name". Of course, it would be interesting to see how official Rand McNally's boundaries are for neighborhoods like Anaheim Hills. Mike Dillon 05:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A better map would show the position of the Anaheim Hills neighborhood within the city of Anaheim. That would go far toward making the area's status more clear. Mike Dillon 05:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anyone is willing to make an argument for why the city infobox should be used on a non-city article, so I'm removing it. This notice has been up for almost a week and all known interested parties have made other edits to the article and talk page. Mike Dillon 14:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll:Infobox

This is an informal way to voice your opinion about if an infobox should be included on this community page.

Benefits

• An infobox adds to the overall quality of the article, and puts all facts about a location in an organized manner

The "facts" about Anaheim Hills can be presented in a different "organized manner", one that does not give the impression that it is a formally organized municipality. Any "quality gains" achieved by the infobox would be lost by the confusion and inconsistency it would generate.

• This infobox has completely been modified to meet the ideals of Anaheim Hills as a community including no city seal, city flag, and leads to the Anaheim City Website, and states Community of Anaheim Hills, California on the top of the infobox

The infobox has not been completely modified and remains very similar to that used for cities. The very presentation of "official"-looking statistics gives the impression of an actual governmental entity, which it is not.

• It provides the only cohesive map that shows Anaheim Hills within Orange County, and appears like other similar infoboxes

A map of Anaheim Hills can be presented in the article without having an infobox. Furthermore, any map showing Anaheim Hills would most appropriately show its location within the City of Anaheim, not Orange County.

Drawbacks

• It can lead to some confusion if Anaheim Hills, California is not changed to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California

It will confuse, regardless of the article's title, because NO OTHER Wikipedia article about a neighborhood, district, or other subdivision of a city, to my knowledge, has an infobox.

• Some may think that a few facts are unnecessary on the page

If you support the infobox, please state "support", and if you decline it please state "decline".

• Support --207.200.116.131 03:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Same problem as above; User:Ericsaindon2 has edited from this IP. Mike Dillon 06:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• I have you know that the reference you are making to me is in reality not me. Now you can choose to believe me or not, but I use two names on Wikipedia, ES92808 and Ericsaindon2, so there would be no reason for me to go under an alias other than those two. Plus, my computer code when I am not logged in is different than the one presented there, so unless I was using multiple computers (which would personally be alot of hassle to just impress you people), I couldnt have multiple account/computer numbers --70.237.91.134 07:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• I oppose having an infobox, for the italicized reasons inserted above and expressed under the heading "Infobox and Title" below. Denvoran 05:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• I support the info box because I agree with all the above reasons, but I do feel that, as the original person who put the infobox on the page, it is a good addition. I have read notations made by people about the Anaheim HIlls page on other talk pages, and many seem to think that it is presented well. It was, like stated, completely modified, and can be modified further to meet the standards of confusion. --Ericsaindon2 05:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think that having Anaheim Hills be the one neighborhood with {{Infobox City}} is a bad precedent. If this ends up in the article, it should be more like this. Mike Dillon 05:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would only support a neighborhood infobox for Anaheim Hills if it were standardized for all neighborhoods. However, since there is no standard for collecting data within a neighborhood, I see a neighborhood infobox as bulky and misleading. The closest viable option for data collection would be manually adding up census data for each relevant zip code, but that's not feasible for neighborhoods that lie only partially within a zip code, and data involving percentages is subject to compounding error when summed. In any case, the manipulation of such prepared data borders on original research because of its difficulty to verify even when sources are provided. However, I believe that an infobox without numerical data (i.e. one that just indicates what city the neighborhood is part of and maybe what zip codes it contains) would be too small to be practical and regarded as an annoyance by stewards of neighborhood articles far and wide. Therefore I oppose the infobox altogether. Soltras 08:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose--for reasons stated above. Hollywood doesn't have one, Brooklyn doesn't have one, and to try to include information about Area, Demographics, and Government would be clumsy and innacurate.Adambiswanger1 01:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have modified and reinserted the infobox to meet more of a "community" standard. If you dont like it, please dont just delete it, please put some reasons under the straw thing --Ericsaindon2 07:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed it again just before you added this note. Having a copy of the box on this page is enough for people to see whether the support including it or not. Since this is a long weekend for most people (in the U.S.), we should try to wait a couple days before making any changes on the issues being polled (the infobox and the name). Mike Dillon 07:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like {{Infobox City}} is also in use on Newport Coast, Newport Beach, California. Mike Dillon 08:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Newport Coast existed as a census-designated place before 2001. I don't see much of a problem with having an infobox for a CDP, but now that it is part of Newport Beach the infobox should be removed. The situation here is different: Anaheim Hills was not a CDP for which statistics were officially produced - here an effort is being made to "cook up" figures and statistics so that Anaheim Hills can have its very own infobox, where at least with Newport Coast the figures are (assumably) Census data. Denvoran 15:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just pointing it out. I still oppose having the city infobox on any unincorporated entity. It would be different if there were a reasonable {{Infobox Neighborhood}}, but I honestly can't imagine one that would be of much use. Mike Dillon 17:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have modified the infobox to meet all suggestions listed above, and have come up with a comprimise. Feel free to comment on this revised vesion of the infobox I have described here. --Ericsaindon2 16:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Anaheim hills has no formal boundaries, therefore the map and the statistics are all conjecture. There is no mayor, there is no website, etc - all belong to Anaheim. There's no need for this box, any details which are verifiable about the association can be placed in the text, just like every other neighborhood in America. -Will Beback 20:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose obviously - it isn't a government entity analagous to a city - Symes 02:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support I support the infobox because it is the only place on the internet where there is no fee for getting the statistics on Anaheim Hills anywhere on the world wide web. For those of you that say it is full of useless information, I have fixed that problem on the infobox preview lower down on this page outlined in yellow. It contains more appropriate community statistics instead of the governmental statistics on the city infobox. Now, I feel that since Wikipedia does have this information, becuase I subscribe to Dataquick, and that it is made avalible for anyone to view, it is very beneficial. Nowhere on the internet can you find so much comprehensive information than as you can on this page for Anaheim Hills, versus an incorporated city where that information is very vocal. It makes it more necessary to put it on a page like this when it is the only place that this information is supplied for free. -Ericsaindon2
• Support. It's a nice informative box. What difference does it make whether it's an "official" city or whether other communities have one? The information applies and is accurate whether or not papers are filed in some basement that make Anaheim Hills an "official city". Does anyone really think anyone else is going to be "confused" by the fact that Anaheim Hills has a box, but Hollywood doesn't? --Serge 04:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

{{Infobox City | official_name = Community of Anaheim Hills, California 
|image_map =Ahills23.JPG
|map_caption = Location within [[Orange County, California]] and [[Anaheim, California]]
*Anaheim Hills shaded in red
*[[Anaheim, California|Anaheim]] shaded in gray
|subdivision_type = [[Countries of the world|Country]]<br>  [[Political divisions of the United States|State]]<br>    [[List of counties in California|County]]<br>      [[City]]
|subdivision_name = [[United States]]<br>  [[California]]<br>    [[Orange County, California|Orange]]<br>      [[Anaheim, California|Anaheim]]
|leader_title = Mayor of Anaheim
|leader_name = [[Curt Pringle]]
|area_magnitude = 1 E3
|area_total_km2 = 18.97 sq. miles / 49.13
|area_land_km2 = 17.6 sq. miles / 45.59
|area_water_km2 = 1.37 sq. miles / 3.55
|population_as_of = 2003
|population_note =
|population_total = 53,997 (community)
|population_density_km2 = 1,054.8
|timezone = [[Pacific Standard Time|PST]]
|utc_offset = -8
|timezone_DST = [[Pacific Daylight Time|PDT]]
|utc_offset_DST = -7
|latitude = 33°50'10" N
|longitude = 117°53'23" W
|website = http://www.anaheim.net
|footnotes = ''Anaheim Hills statistics about demograpics, population, economy, etc. can all be found on DataQuick rather than Census for it is not an incorporated place''
}}

Sorry. Adding more and more explanations and disclaimers, especially pointing to information sources that can't be verified without paying money, just shows that this doesn't work. {{Infobox City}} is meant for legally incorporated areas. Mike Dillon 17:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please dont block me, I worked all afternoon on making a new infobox. I dont understand why I should be blocked for doing hard work, and putting it on the page?--Ericsaindon2 03:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Adamantly opposed. Unneccessary, non-standard, and confusing. ^BlankVerse 06:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well then maybe the whole city box should just be changed because this is a modified version of it! If you think that it is confusing (which it really isnt if you had common sense) then I think that the entire city infobox would be considered confusing to te user above. And if it is so unnecesary, then why do real cities need it at all. If the information is readily avalible to you about a place, it should be included, Period! --Ericsaindon2 07:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• It is confusing because it looks like the city infobox so that anyone quickly reading the article they would assume that the article is about a city and not a community within an incorporated city. Infoboxes should not be used for community because in almost all cases the various statistics that are available from different datasets do not apply to exactly the same community boundaries. ^BlankVerse 09:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary

I count votes from five people who are opposed, and votes from two people who are in favor. 2/5 is not close to a majority in favor. -Will Beback 04:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Its actually 3/5, that vote on the AOL user domain was not cast by me. That same domain is used by anyone and everyone unregistered using America Online. But, if you want to start combining votes to devalue other votes, then we can do that too. So get the facts straight before you go and tally incorrectly. And that vote is close enough to make it still considerable.

Since you didn't sign your name I don't you who "me" is. Without getting into the claim about the IP, even 3/5 is far from a consensus in favor of the infoboxes. Certainly the topic is "considerable" - we've been considering it for weeks. But since the poll failed the box should not go in the article. . -Will Beback 09:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Detailed Map

I have included a detailed map of the Anaheim Hills area at a more close up view. I hope it clears up any confusion that you may have had about the Anaheim Hills boundaries. Yes, I know the map does need some updating, but it is the best I could do.......for now.--Ericsaindon2 06:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that. What is the authority for this map's boundaries? Does the City of Anaheim have official boundraies for its neighborhoods? From the description it appears that the boundaries are not the same as a Zip code, unlike many neighborhoods. Are there census tracts? Lastly, please don't post copyrighted images on Wikipedia, except in very limited circumstances. -Will Beback 06:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The Anaheim Hills area designated all areas south of the 91 freeway under their Canyon and Hill area General Plan with the city of Anaheim, a more specific governmental representation division for the large city. This area became known as Anaheim Hills when Anaheim bought this part of the city in 1972 from the City of Orange and the Peralta Family Farm. The zip codes are divided between Anaheim Hills and Anaheim because part of the 92807 (north of the 91 freeway) was part of Anaheim during its 1857 incorporation. The 92807 zip code was added upon when the Peralta Land was purchased in 1972 to add on to this zip code. When the zip code far exceeded the recommended the number of residents per zip code, the eastern portion of the area became the 92808 zip code. So that is why and how Anaheim Hills defined its unofficial boundaries. Many maps are avalible, but are either copywrited or costly to download. Anaheim does allow you to purchase the Anaheim Hills General Plan Map at their convention center, but the best way I have found was using a blank map and shading in the areas described in official text. --70.237.91.134 22:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at the City of Anaheim's General Plan.[3] It makes no mention of a neighborhood called "Anaheim Hills", only the "Hill and Canyon Area". It does mention "West Anaheim", which elsewhere you wrote is not officialy designated. So are you asserting that Hill and Canyon Area is the same as Anaheim Hills, and if so, what is your source? -Will Beback 01:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a picture of 1/11 of these signs that is scattered marking the borders of Anaheim Hills since you seem to believe it does not exist. L_welcome_pagestack1_006.jpg-Ericsaindon2

The correct link to the image is Image:L_welcome_pagestack1_006.jpg. Soltras 05:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That image, Image:L_welcome_pagestack1_006.jpg, appears to be the same as Image:Anaheim Hills 6.jpg. It reads, "Anaheim Hills: Planned Community Association". So, it's not a city, and it's not a recognized neighborhood. It's an "association". Are we sure that the association covers the same ground as the "Hill and Canyon Area"? -Will Beback 06:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, "Anaheim Hills" is a development within the Hill and Canyon Area, but is not the entire area. Here it's described as a "3,000 lot master community"[4]. This real estate site calls it a neighborhood [5], but since the city doesn't it is a bit iffy. -Will Beback 06:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to clear this up again. The Anaheim Hills Community Asssociation is just one of nearly seven community associations in the Anaheim Hills area (and yes it is the larges of them). ALL areas in Anaheim Hills are under an association, or it is not part of Anaheim Hills according to the outline of the Canyon and Hill area General Plan. Excluding the parts north of the 91 freeway, all of the Canyon and Hill General Plan is Anaheim Hills, but since these areas north of the 91 freeway dont pay one of Anaheim Hills's many association fees, they are not considered Anaheim Hills. I showed you this picture because I thought that you got the impression that Anaheim Hills served as a name for merely nothing. It wasnt to prove the point of its community association, it was to show you that the term Anaheim HIlls does exist. --70.237.91.134 20:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

So Anaheim Hills is a consortium of developments/HOAs that occupies parts of the officially recognized Hill and Canyon Area? -Will Beback 21:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are finally getting it! However, not all areas of Anaheim Hills are under an Association fee, but all areas of the Canyon and Hill Area General Plan do benefit from the Associations paid by these residents. As you can probably assume, Anaheim Hills has tried to reincorporate dozens of times over the years, and I think that since Anaheim Hills fits a model equation for a city after its development over the past twenty years, cityship for Anaheim Hills is not far away.--70.237.91.134 05:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's an unusual arrangement, but perhaps increasingly common. Regarding cityhood, I personally doubt we'll see it anytime soon. First, in all of the research I've done I haven't seen any mention of a movement for independence. Second, such a city would have very little sales tax base (the main source of income for most Califorina cities), and so probably would not be economically viable. Bedroom communities don't work as cities. That's my opinion, but it leads me to question any assertions of a meaningingful independence movement. -Will Beback 07:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

How did you determine the census and demographics figures? Whenever I try to enter "Anahiem Hills" at http://factfinder.census.gov, all I get is that it "cannot find any information for the location you specified". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that it was probably retabulated from the 92807 and 92807 ZCTA data. This would be fine if it were more explicit about the source (cf. Ladera Ranch, California#Demographic estimates). Mike Dillon 14:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are some links for the ZCTA data: 92807, 92808. I spot-checked that the numbers in this article match the combination of the two ZIPs by recalculating the African American number of 0.2% (632 + 418 / 36283 + 19612). The ZCTA reference maps are here: 92807, 92808. Mike Dillon 15:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, as long as someone rewrites the section to be more like Ladera Ranch, California#Demographic estimates, I am fine by that. But then that leads back to the original question posted above: What are exactly the boundaries of Anaheim Hills? Of course, if you enter "Anaheim Hills" into the USPS Zip code finder, it lists 92807, 92808, 92809, and 92817 (which is designated for PO Boxes only). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I messed up the math, but the actual statistic is 1.87%. I guess no published statistics match the "0.2%" in the article. Mike Dillon 03:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

These demographics are avalible by using ONLY the 92808 zip codes statistics. Since Anaheim Hills only contains parts of the 92807 zip code, the 92807 zip code cannot be used in a census search. The parts of Anaheim Hills in the 92807 are greatly outnumbered by the other noninclusive parts of Anaheim that contain the 92807 zip code. When the OC Register does statistics and figures regarding Anaheim HIlls, all data can be found on the DataQuick database, although the OC Register does pay alot of money for access to this private organizations information. --Ericsaindon2 02:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Then how come the "Black or African American" statistic for the 92808 ZCTA says "2.1" percent and the change you made on May 19 says "0.2" percent? Mike Dillon 03:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Because like I told you, the counted zip code, 92808, may say 2.1, but you bare not including the WHOLE PICTURE. This sector of the 92807 zip code is nearly .5%, which nulls that 2.1% out. But when looking at the 92807 zip code in its entirety, you can clearly see that the african american population is significantly higher, because the parts of the 92807 zip code that are not in Anaheim Hills have a significantly higher African American population than the 92807 Anaheim Hills parts. This MUST be calculated using neigborhood statistics and not zip code statistics, like I have done. --70.237.91.134 05:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What are neighborhood statistics? The recognized "neighborhood" is "Hill and Canyon Area". It osunds like individual census tracts would have to compiled in order to get the right statistics for the area. -Will Beback 08:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. 92807 has a 1.7% statistic for "Black or African American" and 92808 has 2.1% (632 people in 92807 and 418 people in 92808). So basically you've just admitted that you're doing original research since the only way to come up with these numbers is logic that only you know (i.e. not based on the published boundaries of any recognized authority). This entire exchange is getting more and more ridiculous. Mike Dillon 14:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

But you took the demographics from the ENTIRE 92807 zip code! That is not correct! The African American Population in 92807 may be the number you stated, but this part of Anaheim Hills' 92807 zip code is below 0.2%! And remember you cannot just average the numbers together because the 92807 zip code for this sector of Anaheim Hills has many more people than 92808 does, virtually making the 2.1% in the 92808 zip code nonexistent. Check your math, and dont include the whole 92807 Zip Code!--70.237.91.134 04:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Then what exactly are the neighborhoods and communities you are using to define your data set? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills, like I stated earlier to Will Beback is... I will try to clear this up again. The Anaheim Hills Community Asssociation is just one of nearly seven community associations in the Anaheim Hills area (and yes it is the largest of them). ALL areas in Anaheim Hills are under an association, or it is not part of Anaheim Hills according to the outline of the Canyon and Hill area General Plan. Excluding the parts north of the 91 freeway, all of the Canyon and Hill General Plan is Anaheim Hills, but since these areas north of the 91 freeway dont pay one of Anaheim Hills's many association fees, they are not considered Anaheim Hills. Anaheim Hills does have official boundaries, and is defined by the land movement and purchase in 1972 by the City of Anaheim with Texaco Industries to build Anaheim Hills.--Ericsaindon2 04:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

DataQuick vs. Census Debate

OK. Here is my math:

${\frac {632+418}{36283+19612}}\sim 1.878\%$

I don't know what your math is because you're making no sense, but even if half the people in 92807 lived in "Anaheim Hills" and there were no African Americans there, your numbers are wrong:

${\frac {0+418}{{\frac {36283}{2}}+19612}}\sim 1.107\%$

Even if all of 92807 was part of "Anaheim Hills" and had no African Americans, your numbers would be wrong:

${\frac {0+418}{36283+19612}}\sim 0.747\%$

Your "0.2%" is a bullshit number. I'd like to see your math. Mike Dillon 04:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I see your point. I did not do any complicated math formula, I used DataQuick to solve the demographical makeup of ANaheim Hills. I have changed it to reflect each neighborhood using the Census Map in 92807, and full 92808 statistics, then averaged each number based on the population. I am sorry this has become such an ordeal. --Ericsaindon2 05:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that you are using data from both DataQuick and Census.gov to compute those averages? Such calculations would be inaccurate unless both DataQuick and Census.gov took their data at the same time. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I have been using DataQuick, and it has thrown user Mike Dillon off a bit because he was using Census and couldnt figure out why there was such a discrepency in the numbers. I told him that it is harder to use Census because they dont recognize Anaheim Hills, whereas DataQuick Orange County does. But to make Mike Dillon happy, I switched to Census and did the calculations neighborhood by neigborhood to get the totals. --Ericsaindon2 05:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's see: Anaheim Hills is unrecognized as a geographic location by the U.S. Census Dept., the U.S. Postal Service, the state of California, and the city of Anaheim. It's an indistinct neighborhood, and so I think we should avoid detailed demographic and geographic info. Let's just say the area has over 50,000 residents and almost 19 square miles. We will be perfectly accurate in both respects. Also, can we all agree about the P.O.? That screenshot is very odd content. Even if we don't agree, let's at least move it to this page for discussion. -Will Beback 08:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: Eric, there is mail for you at User talk:Ericsaindon2. You can respond there. Cheers, -08:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we just keep the infobox on the page. I mean at the very top of the infobox I put Community of Anaheim Hills--so you would have to be totally oblivious to think Anaheim Hills is a city at that point, plus the first words in the article state that it is just a community. There is no way you could misinterpret that this is a community, unless you just skipped reading the infobox altogether. Furthermore, the infobox is totally accurate and uses neighborhood by neigborhood census tracts, versus just Anaheim or 92807, 92808 as a whole. I spent alot of time working on this box, and rallying information that I feel approporiate for the infobox. It is not creating any confusion, I mean even in the infobox it states City:Anaheim, even the dumbest person could figure out Anaheim Hills is just a community. Pls, why would you deny people the opportunity of learning everything about Anaheim Hills on one page since everything you research about Anaheim Hills is very scattered, and/or incomplete information. I think that Wikipedia, as it stands now, gives the most comprehensive information about Anaheim Hills, and I have had a couple of personal emails saying that I represented Anaheim HIlls well on this page. Although it may look like a city infobox, I have made it so that its idiot proof, and couldnt be mistaken. Can you just leave it because I know its standard rules for a city to have this box, but the box has totally been customized to fit Anaheim HIlls with the removal of the seal and flag slot, as well as the addition as included in the City of Anaheim. --70.237.91.134 03:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Eric, you have once again violated our policies by reverting the repeatedly. Please do not make these unilateral edits when the rest of the editors disagree with you. Please respond to the messages on your talk page. -Will Beback 04:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you people just leave Eric alone! The page reads well, and it is obvious that it is a community for this fact is stated over and over again on the page. Stop using an abusive power that you have and keep blocking him just beacuse he is improving an article. Not everyone will approve it, but it is a good article, and I believe that the infobox is beneficial to the article (because Eric is right about it being hard to find information about Anaheim Hills on the world wide web). You cannot seem to give any reason that the infobox shouldnt be there, unlesss you personally have something against user:Ericsaindon2 or something, and I cannot come up with a reason that it shouldnt be there. He switched all his data over from DataQuick, or whatever its called to meet the ideals of the Census Survey, and even did his calculations neighborhood by neighborhood, which is a timely process, just to gain the approval of other uncooperative editors, and they still arent happy. So what! The infobox was not originally intended for communities, yet it has been totally changed and customized to fit Anaheim Hills as a community, and not as a city.--207.200.116.131 04:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a collaborative effort. Editors who are not willing to honor the input of other users should find a different project. If other editors agreed to the box then your agruments might make sense, but it is inappropriate for Eric to keep re-inserting it over the objections of everyone else. It is also inappropriate to keep moving the title of the article. Eric himself moved several other neighborhood articles to the "neighborhood, city, state" format, so he clearly understands it and is apparently avoiding that format for this article intentionally. As for the demographics, this neighborhood has no official boundaries, so there can be no exact data about it. Vague data would be fine. I hope that when his block expires he will work with the other editors to find a consensus, and then will honor that consensus. As for you, please get a username if you want to have a separate identity. However if this is Eric, please be aware that abusive sockpuppets are not tolerated. -Will Beback 04:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox and Title

It seems that (a) certain contributor(s) is/are trying very hard to assert Anaheim Hills' "independence" and is/are going to great lengths to distinguish and separate it from Anaheim. Posting an "infobox" for the community is misleading and inappropriate. Even Hollywood and Brooklyn - probably the two most recognizable "communities" in the country that are parts of cities and not cities of their own DO NOT have infoboxes! Why should Anaheim Hills, which is much less known and far less important than Hollywood or Brooklyn? Using an infobox suggests that Anaheim Hills is formally organized as some sort of municipality, which it is not. Instead of showing the location of the community within Anaheim, which would demonstrate that it is a portion of that city, it shows its location within Orange County - just like the infoboxes of legitimate Orange County cities do. This is misleading! It lists a mayor, suggesting that there is a mayor of Anaheim Hills - this is not true! The infobox supplies irrelevant, "fluff" information - it is clear from other parts of the article that the community is in California, and who cares what time zone a neighborhood is in? Simply slapping "community" on the heading of the infobox does not eliminate these confusions and inaccuracies.
Furthermore, the title of the article as "Anaheim Hills, California" is in the format generally used for independent cities and towns, or for legitimate place names used in mailing addresses. Since "Anaheim Hills, California" is none of these, using it as the title of the article is inconstent and misleading. The article on the Los Angeles district of Hollywood is titled "Hollywood, Los Angeles, California" and the article on the New York City borough of Brooklyn is titled simply "Brooklyn". The title of this article should either be "Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California" or "Anaheim Hills", but not "Anaheim Hills, California".
In light of the above arguments I am removing the infobox and moving the article again. If someone can provide legitimate arguments supporting why Anaheim Hills, among the many tens of thousands of neighborhoods of the U.S., is so exceptional that it merits its very own infobox, please state it here. Likewise, please state why this article should break convention and be titled as {city, state} even though Anaheim Hills is not a city, town, or a postally acceptable place name. Denvoran 06:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but lets get some kind of concensus before just moving the page around...especially since you have put forward two proposals. There are plenty of unincoprorated areas that are listed "place, state" that are not officially towns or cities. I see some logic in the name including the city of which the community is part - but from what I see there is far from any kind of style guide on how to handle this. Another option is Anaheim Hills, California (community) and that has the advantage of easier wikilinks Anaheim Hills, California since you can easily get wikipedia to ignore the info in parens easily - ie include the pipe but no text after the pipe like this: [[Anaheim Hills, California (community)|]] will create a link that is named for the article minus the parens Symes 10:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that "Community, State" is primarily used for unincorporated areas outside of a city (or at least not entire contained within a city). Anaheim Hills, however, is a neighborhood fully contained within the city of Anaheim, so it should be named "Community, City, State". Mike Dillon 14:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've started an informal "straw poll" on the naming in the Page move section above. As for the infobox issue, it would be nice if we continued the ongoing discussion in the Infobox City section above instead of splitting it up. Mike Dillon 14:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Economy

So I re-worded/wrote the recently added "Economy" section, but I added a {{Fact}} beside the list of companies that are headquartered in Anaheim Hills, just to ensure that the original writer is sure that they are indeed headquarters, and not regional branches. If anyone from the area can verify this list, feel free to remove it.Adambiswanger1 05:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

USPS screenshot

Here is the USPS screenshot:

I am removing it from the article. Mike Dillon 06:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC) )

• I admit that image I posted was an odd piece of evidence... but it looked cool at the time. Now that I look at it, that fair use image is not really that necessary when the text speaks for itself. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Straw Poll

Will, will you vote on the infobox and on the redirect page, it would really help out the votes. --70.237.91.134 05:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• I will remain neutral on this one. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

New Community Infobox Preview

Anaheim Hills, California

Community Facts
Community Population	53,997 (community)
Population Density	1054.8 km
City Population	335,887 (Anaheim, California)
Percent of City Population	6.22%
	Area
-Land Total	17.6 square miles
-Water Total	1.37 square miles
-Total	18.97 square miles
Population Characteristics
Caucasian/White	69.4%
Asian	20.8%
African American	1.8%
Hispanic/Latin American	3.9%
Other	4.8%
Housing Types	Estate Sized, Large Single Family
Median Income	$102,000 (household)
Median House Value	$994,000 (as of May 2006)
Location
Country	United States
-State	California
-County	Orange County, California
-City	Anaheim, California
Postal Codes	92807, 92808
	Unofficial Borders
North	91 freeway
South	Orange, California
East	Riverside County line, Cleveland National Forest
West	55 freeway, 92806 zip code border

• I added an infobox on the demographics portion similar to the one on the Ladera Ranch, Mission Viejo, California Community page to the Anaheim Hills page. I did have to modify it because some information that was avalible for Ladera Ranch wasnt avalible for Anaheim Hills and visa versa. I would like to include the map on this infobox versus the way it sits right now because where it is located right now in the page is not where the location is described. I dont know how to add the map to the infobox lower down on the demographics page, but if someone with more knowledge about doing that could assist me I would appreciate it!--Ericsaindon2 01:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll New and Modified

I have created a whole new infobox totally custom for communities only including things tht communitites have. It does not include all of that governmental information, but rather focuses on the people and characteristics of a community, which can be determined in some communitites in other ways besides through Census. This one provides a whole new look, and disincludes the city seal and city flags. However, it does include features that are more directed to communities, like unofficial boundaries, and people characteristics to replace governmentl statistics that arent avalible for unincorporated areas. I hope it suits the needs, and I think that it will provide a good addition to the page. Also, it will give Wikipedia a heads up when people are researching Anaheim Hills. It is the only place where statitics are avalible for free about Anaheim Hills, since the source of the infomation, DataQuick, costs money to get the privately researched information. It is more necessary on this page than any other city page, because other cities have that information posted all over the internet, and communities dont have it posted anywhere, so why deprive the public of this valuable information when it is avalible, and can be avalible on Wikipedia?

• Support --Ericsaindon2 04:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The information you refer to can be in the article without an infobox (and currently is). The map could be shown on its own. The problem here, which you still aren't realizing, is that DataQuick's data can't be used because we don't know what they're calling "Anaheim Hills". The fact that Anaheim Hills is unofficial is likely the reason that you can't find information on the Internet. Also, you're probably violating the terms of service for your subscription by reposting this data here. Without a reliable source, this information should not be on Wikipedia. Dataquick is not reliable unless we can confirm the scope and applicability of their data. However, even if we can confirm this, they probably aren't appropriate as a source because that means we're basing the very definition of Anaheim Hills on Dataquick, which is not at all a definitive source of such information. Mike Dillon 14:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Same reasons as before (bulky, nonstandard; unreliable, unverifiable, constructed data). Soltras 15:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Besides the aesthetic issues with the infobox, I hesitate to install something that would by extension require use on thousands of other articles about neighborhoods. Also, as mentioned by Mike Dillon, the definition of "Anaheim Hills" is uncertain, and so demographics should be approxamated, explained, and analyzed within the text. Adambiswanger1 18:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose This straw poll is redundant and everything has already been discussed above in its predecessor. I hope the results of this poll provide the definitive outcome that all will abide by. Denvoran 19:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. per my original reasons, plus those of the other oppose votes. ^BlankVerse 07:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. For reasons stated above. --Coolcaesar 05:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we move this thing

Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California?Adambiswanger1 03:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the issue is split right down the middle by means of opposition and support. It is not causing any problems, so just leave it. --Ericsaindon2 03:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Eric, why are you opposing moving this page while you are moving many others? -Will Beback 04:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Because those pages dont have a split vote on whether to move it or not like this one does. If nobody votes (like what happened on the other pages) then it can be moved, but there is so much controversy on this page that it should remain unaffected until a clear resolution can be come to. If Mike Dillon decides to start an arguement on another page, like he did on this one, then we can change those back too. --70.237.91.134 04:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Weather, crime, etc

From where are we getting the weather, crime, and other information? I don't see any sources that look like they would contain such info. -Will Beback 04:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The accountability report at the bottom of the page contains some estimated crime and weather facts. But the real information about these statistics come from Google Earth (mainly for weather) and Dataquick (mainly for crime) --Ericsaindon2 05:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

History

Is it ok if I add a history section to the Anaheim Hills page? I will upload it within a few minutes, but in the meantime I would like to hear some comments on this talk page. --Ericsaindon2 04:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sure my newest addition, History, has alot of technicalities that can be fixed (spelling, grammar, etc). Feel free to correct it and read over it, because it does have word and structure issues. Meanwhile, I will continue to edit this page as well to proofread it. --Ericsaindon2 05:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a picture showing the bulk of my description of Anaheim Hills in 1925. I am not sure how to edit this picture because it is avalible for use in public domain, and the original photographer (now dead) has released all rights to the photo. I think it shows the Anaheim and Anaheim Hills area well. I would also like it if some wordings could be changed in the history part to make it sound more "encyclopedic". I was a bit tired when I wrote it so the right words werent coming to mind. It does seem to need a little bit of help in its editing. Oh, and thank you for putting the picture in the infobox whichever editor did that. It looks really good, and doesnt resemble a city infobox in any way. This page is definately starting to shape up. In regards to the name change, please dont, at least for like another week. THerew are good arguements for both sides, and because of that the vote is split. The support votes do have one more than the oppose votes, but the oppose votes have many more reasons to why it should not be changed than support has provided for why it should be changed (rather than it just should just because it is convention). It includes all of the stuff and information that actual cities do, which is more than any other community page shows. I would arguably agree with a statement I read that Anaheim Hills was one of, if not the best and most comprehensive community articles on Wikipedia. Nearly 85% of all community pages are stubs, and nearly none of them can touch the caliber of the Anaheim Hills page has reached over the past few months. Thanks everyone for making Anaheim Hills a revolutionary approach for all communities in the USA to follow, and making it such a prime example for what works (and what doesnt) when it comes to community pages. This page went from the worst to the best in just a matter of months, and everyone that participated should feel accomplished. --Ericsaindon2 06:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Return of the Infobox

I noticed that an infobox has reappeared on the page. I'm not sure what changes it reflects to address the concerns by those who opposed in the above polls, but I think out of prudence considering the situation here I think it would be wise if for a little while major changes took place after consensus on the talk page. I realize that maybe I haven't made my concerns clear with why I oppose an infobox so I shall do so as clearly as I can:

• The Anaheim Hills boundary is currently described in the article as follows: "Anaheim Hills is comprised of two zip codes, 92807 which serves the western portions of Anaheim Hills, and 92808 which serves the eastern portion of Anaheim Hills. Not all parts of the 92807 zip code are included in Anaheim Hills. Only those residents that live south of the 91 freeway in the 92807 zip code are in the Anaheim Hills vicinity." The infobox cites the population as 53,997. The sources provided give data based on whole zipcodes, but Anaheim Hills is defined on partial zips. How was this (very precise) figure ascertained? By the current definition of Anaheim Hills boundary, I see no viable way of constructing a population figure unless one can be directly provided by some outside statistics agency.
• Similarly, after visiting the referenced sites, I couldn't find the data that was used in the infobox for racial percentages. This may have come from the US Census by adding up the zip codes data, but (aside from the fact that Census isn't identified as a source) the inhibitions of partial zip codes creates a problem here too. Additionally, if the data was added up manually per zip code, great care must be taken with the manipulation of percentages because they are relative values, not absolute (I speak from experience).
• My argument extends also to the precise values ascertained for land and water area. I didn't see this information from the sources provided.
• How was the median home value calculated? If it was averaged from the participating zip codes, then care must have been taken to account for more or fewer homes from one zip code to the next. (in an extreme example, picture two neighboring zipcodes, 11111 and 22222. In 11111 there is a single home and it's worth $1,000,000. In 22222 there are a ten homes all worth $100,000. The average home value for the area is $181,181, not $550,000 which is the plain average of the two zips.) Hopefully I have made it clear why I am so interested in how the data was constructed.
• Finally, and this is on a different vein, I think an infobox for Anaheim Hills even with perfectly correct and well sourced data sets an impossible precedent for other communities because counterpart data for other neighborhoods may be incomplete or just unavailable.

I think this is worth repeating: let us refrain from infobox adding until a consensus has been reached. Soltras 06:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. But all this information can be concluded by doing a neighborhood by neighborhood Census addition (a complicated formula) which has been done for us by DataQuick in this case. They considered all the neighborhoods, the number of homes, the area that the homes comprimised, and the number of residents to determine this statistic. Since Census convinently divies their statistics by community and associations on their map portion (not their statistical portion) Anaheim Hills can be added together (since Anaheim Hills comprises certain neighborhoods and not others, which are defined on the Census maps). Now, if you want, I can supply you with the formulas that they used, and you will come up with the same numbers. --Ericsaindon2 06:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see DataQuick listed as a source. Please post all your sources. In any case, this still doesn't explain how the infobox cropped back up after it was voted down (twice). Soltras 06:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It is an infobox straight from the Ladera Ranch, California page, which is the only comunity infobox that currently exists. It has been modified to fit the information known about Anaheim Hills. This infobox contains NO governmental statistics whatsoever, just population, characteristics, area, etc. --Ericsaindon2 06:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills, California Protected

Anaheim Hills, California has now been full protected to prevent copy-and-paste moves from this article. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California violates Wiki Naming Convention

According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions:

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

Since NOBODY outside of Wikipedia uses the term Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California to refer to the community of Anaheim Hills, naming an article about it with this term is in direct violation of the primary Wikipedia naming convention. An alleged standard naming "convention" dreamed up by mildly autistic and/or O-C Wikipedia administrators for their own irrational need for perceived order is null and void because using that reason violates the naming convention too, which also is also stated as follows:

Another way to summarize the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions:

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.

The much simpler and more recognizable term of Anaheim Hills alone is what should be the article name here, regardless of what a handful of editors happen to vote for in a strawpoll. --Serge 02:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Support You took the words right out of my mouth. I applaud you for taking this bold stand, and defying the editors, I like the suggestions you have made. --Ericsaindon2 02:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Has anyone cited a specific naming conventions page above to support the name "Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California"? What is the naming conventions page that explains why we have a Hollywood, Los Angeles, California article instead of Hollywood, and a Manhattan instead of Manhattan, New York, New York. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at every community page in California, and only about 5 out of 150 have this dumb naming convention. All of them have community, state, or just simply community. I dont know who "made up" this rule from the top of their head, but it doesnt make any sense, and is not a rule ANYWHERE in Wikipedia. So, you people have no right to block it from us changing names, because your claims are not rules, and you dont deserve supreme power over us. --Ericsaindon2 02:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Digging deep into the archives, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names)/Archive 8#Proposed update to U.S. and Canada section lists Serge's December 2005 proposal to standardize the naming conventions for all these neighborhood articles. Unfortunately, it failed to pass... which means the naming convention currently depends on on a case by case basis, as determined by the debates and straw polls on each article's talk pages. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Do I need to refresh what the CURRENT RULES OF WIKIPEDIA STATE, NOT THE ONES THAT "DIDNT PASS". From Serges earlier excerpt that proves the point of Anaheim Hills, California, and not the straw poll thingy.

According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions:

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

Since NOBODY outside of Wikipedia uses the term Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California to refer to the community of Anaheim Hills, naming an article about it with this term is in direct violation of the primary Wikipedia naming convention. An alleged standard naming "convention" dreamed up by mildly autistic and/or O-C Wikipedia administrators for their own irrational need for perceived order is null and void because using that reason violates the naming convention too, which also is also stated as follows:

Another way to summarize the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions:

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.

The much simpler and more recognizable term of Anaheim Hills alone is what should be the article name here, regardless of what a handful of editors happen to vote for in a strawpoll.--Ericsaindon2 03:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have to show evidence to prove that it is "the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature". That is what the debates and the straw polls SHOULD be about. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Proof:What the Majority of English Speakers Would Recognize in Naming Convention

Google Search:

• Anaheim Hills, California (pages displayed 23,098);
• Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California (pages displayed 16)

Yahoo Search:

• Anaheim Hills, California (pages displayed 25,641);
• Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California (pages displayed 13)

Alta Vista Search:

• Anaheim Hills, California (pages displayed 14,512);
• Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California (pages displayed 7)

Actual Reference from the City of Anaheim's Police Department Page---

• East Anaheim Police Center Located in Anaheim Hills;
• Oak Canyon Nature Center-Located in Anaheim Hills;
• Anaheim Hills Festival-Located in Anaheim Hills;

www.realtor.com-

• Homes for Sale in Anaheim Hills, California

Postal Service Notice-

• ("please do not use Anaheim Hills, California in mailing letters, use Anaheim, California)

Google.com/maps-

• Type in Anaheim Hills, California; take you right to location of Anaheim Hills,
• Type in Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California you get this this message "could not find this location, check spelling and/or name usage"

I have yet to find any place, besides Wikipedia that uses Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. There are a few references that are currently larger and more powerful than Wikipedia that dont use Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California when referencing Anaheim Hills, but rather use Anaheim Hills, California. --Ericsaindon2 03:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

How come every time I prove my point, everyone gets all quiet? It must be a sign that I am winning this controversy? I think it is since nobody is talking, and/or is willing to prove me wrong. --70.237.91.134 04:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Just my guess, but it is a Friday night and nobody who voted Support above has been online to rebut your claim. Or you could be right in your observation. Whatever the case, I will say again that I do not really care about how this article is named. I never even voted in the straw poll. The only thing I care about is that you should not violate the clear, cut black-and-white policies of Wikipedia such as the three revert rule and resolving disputes. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Text From Solving Issues

The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The Three Revert Rule forbids the use of reverts in repetitive succession. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond in kind, and do not make personal attacks.

Writing according to the "perfect article guidelines" and following the NPOV policy can help you write "defensively", and limit your own bias in your writing. For some guidelines, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

You cannot consider any of my edits vandalism. --Ericsaindon2 04:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Then what do you call removing the {{mprotected}} tag to a page that another uninvolved admin has currently move protected? [6] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

In order to promote peace and reconciliation, I propose that we move the article back to "Anaheim Hills, California". Though the practice of naming articles according to the scheme of "neighborhood, city, state" is very common and practical, it is not a policy. On occasion, some editors have objected strenuously to having their neighborhood article named in that way. While consistency is important in an encyclopedia, the exigencies of collaborative editing are such that sometimes it's virtualy necessary for common practice to give way to individual preference.

This case is slightly different than some because many recent edits sought to portray the district incorrectly as an independent place. Those edits sensitized other editors to claims of independence. However I think we've moved past that stage and there is no longer any question that Anaheim Hills is a part of Anaheim. The article now properly reflects that fact in the text.

If moving the article back to just "Anaheim Hills" will bring peace to the article, and if editors can agree to remove contentious boxes, and unverifiable data, then I think it is worth making an exception to normal practice. This is all too minor to fight about. -Will Beback 09:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

All right. I still support the "AH, A, Calif" format, but my main issue has always been with the infobox. It has reappeared this morning. I still do not know where this information comes from. The sources provided do not give this information (that I could see) and at best they give info broken down by zip code - yet Anaheim Hills is defined on partial zip codes. Ericsaindon2 mentioned something about DataQuick, but it's not listed as a source and when I researched it on my own, I couldn't find in the site where to get data for Anaheim Hills. Soltras 16:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, given the impass we've reached I support this. Will Beback sums it up well. However, I don't want to sound bitter, but shouldn't the magnanimousness expected of the winning party be also expected of the losing minority? Or are we just recognizing their unbending determination? Adambiswanger1 20:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I must object to the statement, Though the practice of naming articles according to the scheme of "neighborhood, city, state" is very common and practical, it is not a policy. . It is NOT a "very common and practical" practice ANYWHERE. And to the extent that this unique naming format is used within Wikipedia makes the practice a violation of Wikipedia's own primary article naming rule. --Serge 17:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the move, but get all of that protection stuff off the page. It looks like your entering some top secret CIA site, and all it is is an Anaheim Hills information page. I cannot promise that the infobox remain off the page (but we will solve that issue after we solve the naming dispute). I dont seem to understand why, if all the facts were verified, that the box cannot remain on the page? Everything was verified, and has sources, and so what if it is not typical for a page to have an infobox! There is no designated community infobox, so that doesnt mean there cant be, it just means that there isnt at this time. Now, since there isnt, the infobox needs to be determined on a page-by-page basis, and it shouldnt come through a straw poll whether it is there or not, but through practicality and verified information. And the straw polls are ianccurate of original opinions because everyone on this page, besides maybe myself, Serge, Adambswanger1 are all working together and all agree about everything because that is standard for admins to do. They dont want to get into a confrontation or they may loose their adminship, so they dont argue, and since they dont argue, they all just agree with eachother, making the polls worthless of original opinion. Now, I am not the one loosing here, neither are any of you, but its those people who rely on Wikipedia for a good source of information that there should be an infobox on the page. It compresses all the demographic facts, and does not include any of that governmental stuff that real infoboxes for cities do. It has facts that are avalible, but take alot of time for people to calculate neighborhood by neighborhood facts like these are. Now how can you deny these people of these facts just because all you admins are backing eachother up, and not truely letting your real feelings out? I have not heard one good reason why the infobox should not be on the page. There is no confusion of if Anaheim Hills is a city, because the infobox is totally modified to just include facts avalible for the area. Now, on this page especially, an infobox is essential because its the only site on the world wide web where someone actually to took the time to go deep into Cenusus records to determine the Anaheim Hills demographics that are verifiable, but are timely to compress. I think that depriving the page of this beneficial infobox would be depriving the people that rely on this site for information on the things they like to look up. Now the only arguement I have heard was that it was big and clunky! Now, just because it is big and clunky doesnt mean that all people that read this article should not be supplied with the information. They are not going to enter the page, and say that box is clunky, I am leaving. No, they will say wow, someone actually took the time to comprise a bunch of Census data just for this page. Like I said, if the deletion of the infobox is a personal attack against me, I am not the one that is loosing, its the readers. And about this page move, I fully support the name, and have wanted it changed to Anaheim Hills, Anaheim Hills, California, or Anaheim Hills (California) from the getgo. I just dont like the Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California name. So I do support the naming portion of your compromise. --Ericsaindon154 23:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It does not help when you create a sockpuppet account to evade User:PS2pcGAMER's 3RR block of your primary User:Ericsaindon2 account [7]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Renaming

Yes, nobody diagrees with the move to either Anaheim Hills, Anaheim Hills, California, or Anaheim Hills (California), they are all fine (comment below). I just want it to be switched from this stupid convention of Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California. And the community infobox I have included will be submitted to be the official community infobox, so please leave it on the page so that the administrators can observe its use on the page. I would appreciate it. Thank Yow. Oh, and it would be nice to have a vote below, so choose a, b, or ce based on what yow would like the choices for Anaheim Hills title to be (based on the categories in bold above). Once this vote is determined, it will stay at its final resting spot.

Vote for the one you like

• a) Anaheim Hills
• b) Anaheim Hills, California
• c) Anaheim Hills (California)
• d) Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California

• Vote "C" - --70.237.91.134 20:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
• C --Serge 17:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Eric, please stop with the polls already. -Will Beback 00:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thats quite the mess on the article. Maybe that stuff should be put at the bottom, so that you can actually read the article. Oh, and good job Ericsaindon2, not! I did agree with you (and still do), but you suck at trying to prove a point! --Es92808 05:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ps, and thanks user:Will Beback for blocking me last week without reason. You just got yourself a nice little admin abuse case. Good luck trying to fight it, since there is no justification you can give for blocking me or the AOL user Ericsaindon2 refers to. --Es92808 05:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• D. I assume that this is the "Final Naming Poll" (with the very short polling period and very little publicity) that Eric spammed on my user page. As shown by the other polls above, choice D is the preferred choice for most Wikipedia editors who have expressed a preference (and aren't anon IPs or sock puppets). ^BlankVerse 08:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What is needed now is probably some fresh faces to offer their opinions. Someone might list this page at Wikipedia:Current surveys, WP:RFC, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) and/or elsewhere.

I wish that I could figure out what happened to it, but I know that when I first started editing the Wikipedia 1 1/2 yrs ago, there was someplace (WP:MOS, WikiProject Cities, ??) where it clearly stated that article names for communities within a city in the United States should be named "Community, City, State" to avoid ambiguity and confusion. My guess is that someone during an argument over the naming of a particular community decided to delete that strong suggestion from the Wikipedia guidelines and nobody noticed the deletion. ^BlankVerse 08:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe enough editors got over their O-C tendencies long enough to recognize that the convention used by real encyclopedias (just the community name) is not confusing, and actual (as opposed to potential) ambiguities can be handled with standard Wiki conventions while at the same time noting that "Community, City, State" results in non-standard goofy-looking article names that violates the fundamental Wiki naming conventions. --Serge 08:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Full protection

Earlier today I blocked two users for violating the 3RR over the inclusion of the infobox. Now, two more users are revert warring. The page has been fully protected until this dispute can be resolved. The version that I protected it at is NOT an endorsement of it. It was simply the version that I came across when I saw the revert war continuing. Please, come to an agreement. Thanks. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User Rfc

FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ericsaindon2. Regretfully, -Will Beback 08:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

PS Community Infobox

I got the approval for the community infobox, go check it out in your free time. [[8]]

That's very nice, but I hope you are not thinking that you can create a one-man project in order to circumvent the opposition to your edits to his article. Playing games is not appreciated. -Will Beback 03:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that was not my intention at all. I just want this infobox, since it was approved, to go onto a few of Orange Counites community pages. They are all Census materials defined by their zip codes. My point was not to combat my conflicts with other editors. --Ericsaindon2 04:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I was hoping that no other community page would end up in such turmoil. A clean black and white community box should be used for ALL communities, and information not avalible for that particular community should be left out (same with adding additional information not on the infobox). I just would hate to see other communities go through so much turmoil. I mean look at this pages conflicts, 13 3rr rule breakings, 1 rfc, 33 pages (printed) of complaining and backstabbing, and a completely split arguement between admins and regular users. I dont think that this war is the way to solve anything, but to make changes so that it can be avoided next time (by adding rules and Wikipedia templates). I hope that you guys can at least support my endeavor to go forward with the new community infobox, and add it to a few pages using the census information on the communities particular zip code. If you just look up the zip codes, all of this information should be there. I would appreciate it alot.--Ericsaindon2 04:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And, I must say that I dont have any hard feelings towards anyone. I know that we all have very different ideas about debates like this when rules are not strictly defined. So know that I am not mad at any of you, nor do I hold a grudge. I know we are all human, and have strong opinions about different things, and that is what makes Wikipedia such a great place is that everyone puts in their idea to come up with a final project. Just know that I am not mad at any of you, and I hope you keep taking stands to modify rules you may not like on Wikipedia. :) --Ericsaindon2 04:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't "approved". You added it to that page yourself. Not that an infobox needs "approval", but what you're saying is misleading. The main problem with the statistics in the infobox has always been their unverifiability due to the lack of a reliable source for the neighborhood's definition. Mike Dillon 01:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Ericsaindon2's grossly misleading misstatement of the facts is evidence of bad faith on his part. He also still does not understand that the statistics are inherently unreliable because there is no officially recognized neighborhood boundary. He also does not understand that ZIP Codes are not required to correspond with neighborhood or city boundaries, which causes problems in many parts of the United States and California in particular. --Coolcaesar 03:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Request unprotection?

This page has been protected for the past two and a half weeks. No discussion has occurred on the issue in the past week on the talk page. Are the issues being resolved and the disputed parties moving towards consensus? How is the progress on the Request for Comments going, and is there progress towards actions against any users? If there are no objections, I will request unprotection. Calwatch 00:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Calwatch. I see no progress; One troublesome user and his sockpuppet accounts were reviewed at RfC, but I'm not sure what the end result was. AdamBiswanger1 11:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I see no progress either. Ericsaindon2 has either given up on his insane mission to call Anaheim Hills a city, or he is on a wikibreak. Perhaps we can try unprotection for a couple of days, but if Ericsaindon2 then comes back and continues to act in bad faith, the article should be protected again and he should be sent to arbitration! --Coolcaesar 03:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. I'll remove it. -Will Beback 08:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)