![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
|
||
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 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?
Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California? Adambiswanger1 03:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions:
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:
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)
According to
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions:
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:
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)
Yahoo Search:
Alta Vista Search:
Actual Reference from the City of Anaheim's Police Department Page---
www.realtor.com-
Postal Service Notice-
Google.com/maps-
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ericsaindon2. Regretfully, - Will Beback 08:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I got the approval for the community infobox, go check it out in your free time. [ [3]]
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
|
||
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 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?
Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California? Adambiswanger1 03:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions:
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:
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)
According to
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions:
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:
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)
Yahoo Search:
Alta Vista Search:
Actual Reference from the City of Anaheim's Police Department Page---
www.realtor.com-
Postal Service Notice-
Google.com/maps-
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ericsaindon2. Regretfully, - Will Beback 08:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I got the approval for the community infobox, go check it out in your free time. [ [3]]
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)