Talk:Pine Hills, California

Untitled

Wondering how to edit this U.S. City Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Cities standards might help.

Let's just accept that the area is known as "Pine Hill."

No one can be totally comfortable with everything. But one thing is for sure, regardless of the census name error, this area is known by the singular version of the name. Pine Hill is just Pine Hill, no matter how you slice it. Pluralizing this name is an error. Norcalal 03:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not really care how the article is named, but wrongly or rightly, the U.S. Census still calls it "Pine Hills", so I think this name still should be mentioned in the lead section as a reference because people still use the census statistics as an official source. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The article's about a census-designated place: CDPs can be wrongly named (see Lisco, Nebraska), but the standard is to name CDPs as they're actually named. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Using the Lisco, Nebraska exactly, I have redirected this article back to the correct article name with the incorrect, official CDP name in bold at the beginning. Thank you for bringing clarity to this issue, but as you can see you did not follow your own example. As a sidenote, I realize my original research would have no value here, but I can tell you as a 6th generation Humboldter that there is no one who would make the error of referring to this community in the plural form. I had a few issues (because the wrong name is so counter-intuitive) getting this similar to the example given, but it is correct and, most importantly, there is a citation from the local authority, The County of Humboldt. It makes sense to have it correct, but to respect the official CDP designated name (if incorrectly) within the correctly named article. Norcalal 05:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I do not care what it is named. But as per Wikipedia's policies, please do not do a "cut and paste move" because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Therefore, you may want to post something on Wikipedia:Requested moves to seek comments of others. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that editor Nyttend cites the Lisco, Nebraska article as the example to follow, then reverts my move without following the example. Citation opportunities abound illustrating the real name of the community as Pine Hill, California at The County of Humboldt Official Website. There are tens of references, official and otherwise in the local newspaper and government sites. However, many non-local real estate type websites (often called relocation sites) use the incorrect name, as does Google maps and other non-local entities. Should not the County of Humboldt be the authority on this matter? (Let alone the fact that every person in the region knows the area by the singular name). In any case, the reality remains that Pine Hills is a name constructed in error by the US Census. The example given for Lisco, Nebraska provides a good compromise, using the incorrect CDP name in bold within the text, but the correct community name AS the name of the article. Please discuss. Norcalal 06:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Pine Hills, California → Pine Hill, California — See previous posts here. The article (the name for the community) is in error due to the CDP mistaken plural name for the community. The example for these issues is Lisco, Nebraska. The format is clear enough. Why not follow it? — Norcalal 06:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support. There seems consensus above that the singular version is the common name. I don't see what the problem is in mentioning and bolding the CDP name in the lead, in fact following the proposed move conformity to WP:MOS will require it IMO, to provide a target for the resulting redirect. Andrewa (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Contrary to what is stated, locals are not the authorities on what to call a census-designated place, and we really need overwhelming proof to demonstrate that the Census Bureau made an error — after all, the Census Bureau is the definitive source for demographics etc., on which the entire federal government depends for issues as important as the apportionment of Congress, as well as for tons of lesser tasks. Moreover, see this page, a map from the 1990 census (to see the context, go to this link, click "Reference maps" and zoom in progressively) — if this were such a problem, why would it not have been reported to the Census Bureau before 2000; as noted in the Census Bureau's CDP description, CDPs are typically named/bounded in coöperation with local officials, so surely a complaint about the name would lead to a new spelling. Moreover, you find Google's usage problematic because it's not local, as (I assume) you do the Census Bureau — remember that local data comes from local people, so it's not like Google headquarters and the Census Bureau offices order that the place be called this just because they feel like it. "PHs" is also recognised as a populated place by the USGS. I definitely don't think it right to omit notes about sheriff, county supervisors, etc. calling it "PH", but without overwhelming evidence as we have for Lisco (after all, with Lisco we even have the CCD around the community being called Lisco), we shouldn't presume that we should reject the Census Bureau's designation for this census-designated place. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

PH has never been called anything else. In six generations of my family owning land there, the name has never been plural. You like the federal reference, but it is in error as are you. If you say the federal reference is so vital to apportionment or highway funds or whatever, would not the local school district have gotten the plural name? Or any of the several churches? And yet, not one of those entities has. Norcalal 16:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• If this were an article about the area as a cultural entity, I'd be inclined to support this request as common usage. However, the article explicitly states that its scope is the census-designated place, and as such, I don't find the current title to be incorrect. Oppose, unless the article is rewritten so that it is about the place itself, and not "the federal reference". Dekimasuよ! 02:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Support if the article is written as the area on the edge of Eureka that is known as Pine Hill. Since "Pine Hills" is only a census construct, that will have to be made clear. Any definition of Pine Hill that includes areas like Westgate and Ridgewood are most definitely constructs that no one outside statisticians at the Census would consider as having any basis in reality beyond demographics. Norcalal 15:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Has anyone noticed that the area named Pine Hill as shown in the Humboldt County Neighborhoods/Urban Limit Line and Pine Hill Zoning is not the same area described by the Pine Hills CDP? The Pine Hill neighborhood is north of Herrick Ave while the Pine Hills CDP is to the south. The Pine Hill neighborhood appears to be more closely approximated by the Bayview CDP. The GNIS also has separate entries for both singular and plural forms with a similar difference in placement. U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Pine Hill and U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Pine Hills. The location of the U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Pine Hills Census Designated Place is closely aligned with the Pine Hills populated place. The GNIS citation for Pine Hill is Collected during Phase I data compilation (1976-1981) while the citation for Pine Hills is Census County/Townships, CDP's and incorporated cities - Bureau of Census, Geography Division, coordinates are located at the centroid. There is a GNIS record for U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Bayview from the Phase I data compilation which appears to be located at the northwest corner of both the Bayview CDP and the Pine Hill neighborhood plan.

The place is listed under "Pine Hill" in California's Geographic Names by David L. Durham, where it is described as district, 2.5 miles south of downtown Eureka (40°45′55″N 124°10′20″W, near NE cor. sec. 3 T 4 N, R 1 W) Named on Eureka (1958) 7.5' quadrangle. The place was also called East Sunnyside and Tigerville, as well as Pine's Hill for Safford E. Pine, who had a dairy farm there. The USGS topographical map shows the summit of Pine Hill at the described location, or near the northeast corner of the intersection of Higgins St. and Union St.

I don't share the apparent faith that other have in the inerrancy of the U.S. Census Bureau, especially as regards the naming of CDPs. CDPs are nothing more than statistical abstractions that for convenience sometimes share the name of nearby features or neighborhoods. CDPs are not in any way official definitions of a locality. However, we need to be careful not to misrepresent the CDP data as representing something other than a relatively arbitrary assemblage of statistical data. That is, just because a CDP happens to have the same or a similar name as a nearby place name, they are not necessarily synonymous. In this particular case, I would not move the CDP article unless it can be positively determined that the Pine Hill place name has actually been subsumed by area defined by the CDP. That is, the statistics in the article are for the area defined by the CDP -- which may or may not actually correspond to the local place name of Pine Hill. older ≠ wiser 16:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

East Sunnyside and Tigerville are names lost to the local scene. Interesting you would mention Higgins and Union, as that would be very near the high point of the hill and the main intersection at which point Union Street is a direct shot north to the city limits of Eureka located. The area of PH does mostly spread from that intersection toward the south (and east and west). In Census data from 1981, they list the area with the correct name as Pine Hill along with two other later listings for "Pine Hills." in a slightly different place (by coordinates - http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=108:2:2656074553574109::NO:::). Why the other two census community listings would refer to "Fields Landing" -see link above- is odd as that town is located to the south and west over by the bay - miles from Pine Hill). Perhaps this IS a construct of the Census, based in their need to group data, but with little or just "passing" respect for the community there (or near there?). If that is the case, I will construct a different article to include for Humboldt County related articles and bypass this weird Federal creation. The situation is so troublesome in relation to the local suburban neighborhood known as Pine Hill, that it demands resolution. Thank you to anyone who contributes...it has already been a valuable learning opportunity. Pine Hill is a very specific spot. There are others that are not. Norcalal 17:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The coordinates provided in the article give the location of Pine Hills as existing in a place known as Westgate. This place is about 1.5 miles south southeast of Pine Hill. There is something very wrong here...unless it is a fabricated CDP with no real regard for Pine Hill. There is still a need to explore further. How do we determine if the coordinates listed in the article are exactly the same as the Census has for the CDP? Norcalal 21:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The coordinates are from the GNIS record for the CDP U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Pine Hills Census Designated Place, which as far as I'm aware directly correlates to the data used by the Census Bureau. This difference is precisely why I raised the question in the first place. older ≠ wiser 02:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wider issue

To what extent is the Census Bureau the final arbiter of place names, even for CDPs? See Talk:Lisco, Nebraska#Lisco or Cisco? for a similar issue which was IMO far simpler.

Note also that the resolution in the case of Lisco/Cisco was quite simple... I asked the Census Bureau, who readily admitted their mistake. Andrewa (talk) 19:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to incorporated municipalities and other governmental entities with defined boundaries, I think the Census can be taken as reasonably authoritative. CDPs however, are an invention of the Census Bureau and I wouldn't trust the Census as authoritative for anything other than the data reported for the statistical entity (which may happen to share a name with an actual nearby feature or community). older ≠ wiser 23:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In the cases of Lisco/Cisco and Pine Hill/Hills, it's more than sharing a name... the CDP is an attempt by the Census Bureau to unambiguously identify a community. I'd argue that in such cases the community is prima facie more notable than the associated CDP, so that assuming there's only one article covering both, the article should be primarily about the community. This remains true even if the article is a stub with no content other than the census data, and not withstanding that it's a member of a category of CDPs. Do you see where I'm leading? Andrewa (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

PS and I sense that the US Census Bureau is of the same high standard of professionalism of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, who conduct the census in Australia. Part of this professionalism is being realistic about the accuracy of their data. Years ago I was one of the low-level workers in a census, and part of our briefing went There are 10,000 of you, so if you each miss one house, we'll end up 40,000 people out. Andrewa (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree, although I'm not quite certain about your statement that the CDP is an attempt by the Census Bureau to unambiguously identify a community. Perhaps so in Lisco/Cisco, it is less clear in Pine Hill/Pine Hills. I may have missed it in earlier discussion, but I don't think there is yet any evidence that is not derived from Census data of a community named "Pine Hills". And considering that the mapped area of the CDP is at such variance with the Pine Hill neighborhood (which is actually included within the Bayview CDP), I think the similarity of the Pine Hills CDP with the nearby Pine Hill neighborhood may be little more than an unfortunately confusing coincidence. Some CDPs are defined simply to capture demographic data for an otherwise unincorporated populated area that may not have any identity as a separate community of any sort. older ≠ wiser 12:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.