Jump to content

Talk:Village of Oak Creek, Arizona

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

Rename page

[edit]

Village of Oak Creek → Village of Oak Creek, Arizona —(Discuss)— Dumb editor's blunder Pete Tillman 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

(moved Big Park, Arizona to Village of Oak Creek: This is the name people actually use, and that's on current maps.) Forgot "Arizona", doh. Pete Tillman 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and completed this move; the request was straightforward and uncontroversial. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper name?

[edit]
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.


This article is about a CDP, defined by the Census Bureau. Therefore, it should have the name already given by the Census Bureau, Big Park (see here for proof). Consider Columbia Township, Lorain County, Ohio: there's a community named Columbia Station, Ohio, but the article is named for the township, because it's an article about the township. Nyttend 22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolutely. There are other precedents for a move just such as this one, and since the only official entity that exists is the CDP it should bear the name of the CDP. I contemplated suggesting this move myself when I edited this article a while back (the map I created, in fact, uses the name Big Park and not Oak Creek) but must have got caught up in what I was doing and failed to do so. So yes, I concur, the article should be under Big Park, Arizona and Village of Oak Creek, Arizona should redirect there. Arkyan • (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The census bureau may call it "Big Park", but no one who lives there does (I live nearby). Since the article is about a community, it seems reasonable to call the town what the inhabitants call it, and use the Census name as a redirect. Cheers, Pete Tillman 04:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only official existence this community has is the definition of the Census Bureau. If this were simply an unincorporated area, such as Rimer, Ohio, we'd have to go with what is commonly accepted, but here we have a reliable source for what Big Park is. If we want to make the article about Oak Creek, we need to delete most of the contents, including all of the population data and most of the geography. Nyttend 05:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we could always just have a small statement to the effect that the village is an unincorporated community within the CDP :) In fact I think there already is. Arkyan • (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider Montrose-Ghent, Ohio in relation either to Montrose, Ohio or Ghent, Ohio: the first article is about the CDP, and the others are about the communities within the CDP. Or for an example rather closer to Big Park and VOC, see Tonto Basin and Punkin Center in Gila County, Arizona: there's one article on the CDP and another on the community. I've no objection to an article about VOC, but I think that an article with VOC's name should be separate from this article. Nyttend 12:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official name: The Census Bureau appears to be the only government agency to use the name "Big Park". For instance, the EPA calls it the "Village of Oak Creek": http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/1996/September/Day-19/pr-16965.html

As does the (federal) Forest Service: http://www.redrockcountry.org/passes-and-permits/index.shtml

As do the state and Yavapai county: http://ww2.co.yavapai.az.us/Resolutions/2005/Res1585-2005.htm

So I don't think it's fair to say that "the only official existence this community has is the definition of the Census Bureau."

As it happens, the Census Bureau's "Big Park" (SFAICT) exactly corresponds to what the federal, state, and county governments (plus everyone who lives there, and in the area) calls the Village of Oak Creek, or VOC. So it would be superfluous to have two articles about the same place. My guess is, the Census Bureau will eventually bow to reality and call it the VOC too. Pete Tillman 20:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, this article is about a census-designated place — see the non-introduction part of the article. Who would talk about living in Montrose-Ghent, Ohio? Would a non-census government office be likely to refer to Montrose-Ghent in articles such as those which you source? Moreover, do you have a source for the statement that the CDP exactly corresponds to VOC? Such a statement is OR unless sourced, and therefore cannot properly be the basis for the name of an article. At any rate, as far as I know every single CDP nationwide has its own article, and it seems rather absurd for this one to be the only exception. Nyttend 21:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"do you have a source for the statement that the CDP exactly corresponds to VOC?"
Sure. Here's the CDP map: click on "reference map" (evil Javascript). Compare to, eg,
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?cp=34.783149%7C-111.761017&style=r&lvl=13&v=1
--there isn't much private land here, and the old Big Park ranch was subdivided into VOC.
We seem to be getting lost in semantics here. To review, the Census Bureau calls the community the "Big Park CDP". Everyone else calls the town the "Village of Oak Creek", or VOC. So long as a search for Big Park, Arizona or Village of Oak Creek, Arizona leads to this article, the user isn't going to care. Our article already explains the relation between the two names. So why not leave the title as it is?
The Census Bureau unfortunately picked a name that no-one in the area uses. There's no reason for Wikipedia to make the same error as the Census did. Pete Tillman 00:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that this is, and always has been, an article about the CDP, not about VOC. Judging by that map, what's to keep a person who lives five feet outside of the CDP from being a resident of VOC? As I said before, I seriously doubt that all other CDPs are what people call those areas, and there are articles about the unincorporated places inside those CDPs. Look at Vienna Center, Ohio: it has "Center", even though apparently it doesn't popularly. Likewise, Columbia Township, Lorain County, Ohio is commonly called Columbia Station; even its chamber of commerce and historical society use that name, but the article is the township name. Either one article should exist, under the name of Big Camp, or two articles should exist. Nyttend 01:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From my point of view, the point is, the Census people misnamed the community.
Big Park is the name of a topographic feature. The Village of Oak Creek is the name of the town where all the people the Census counted in the CDP live. You cannot live "five feet outside of the CDP", because that is public land. Please have a look at the USGS map, linked at the bottom of the article. They are one and the same place, so it's pointless (and would be confusing) to make two articles. Regards, Pete Tillman 04:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you really can't live in the area if you're not in the CDP, that's definitely something toward the strength of your argument. I'm not used to such places; out here in the farm country of west-central Ohio, the closest we have to restrictions like that are islands in Lake Erie, where you definitely can't live off the edge of the island :-) My next question: if a couple live on Mundy Drive northwest of the CDP, where do they say they're from? "We're from VOC" or "We're from near VOC" or something else? It would also help to find out when the CDP was first "created" or "recognised", something that's sadly missing from every CDP article that I remember seeing. Nyttend 13:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CDP and VOC "My next question: if a couple live on Mundy Drive northwest of the CDP, where do they say they're from?" That's a good question, that I was rather hoping you wouldn't bring up <G>. OK, here's the Verde Valley School, which is about 3/4 mi NW of the CDP: http://www.vvsaz.org/ Founded in 1946, it long predates the subdivision of Big Park into VOC. As you'll note, they say the school is "located in beautiful Sedona, Arizona..."

Um. All of these places (incl VOC/Big Park) have a Sedona, AZ mailing address (though VOC does have its own post office, and zip code: 86531). At the 1990 Census, the private land around the school was largely undeveloped. Parts of it are now being subdivided, and million-dollar (and up) homes are going up. What these folks say when asked where they live, I don't know. Likely "Sedona", or "near VOC". (Or "move aside, peasant!") But the school land is separated from the Big Park CDP by about a half-mile of National Forest land, so at present there's a "bright line" between (say) Mundy Dr and the CDP/VOC.

So. I propose we leave the article titles and redirects as they are, leave your nice County template as is -- listing, properly, the CDPs by their Census-given names -- and add VOC to the template as an "other place". What do you think? Hopefully, Pete Tillman 22:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research! I don't think it's a good idea to link to this article multiple times on the same template: navigational templates are meant to direct readers of one article to related articles — in this case, populated places in Yavapai County. If we had a template for CDPs in Arizona and another template for other places in Arizona, it might make sense to list it there. However, since we're talking about only one article and one template, I think such idea would not be the best, leading readers to think that the two links were different places. However, I think that splitting this into two articles would be appropriate: one upon the CDP, and one upon VOC. Nyttend 22:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why not, if you're willing to do the work <grin>. If we do, I think both articles should make clear that they are referring to the same place. Perhaps that's the least contentious solution. Cheers, Pete Tillman 01:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, as has been stated above, this is largely a problem of semantics. However the way I see the issue is still as follows - VOC is an unincorporated community that exists within Big Park CDP. Trying to say that their boundaries exactly coincide is inaccurate - by definition unincorporated communities (at least here in Arizona) have no official boundaries as they are not official entities. Arguments that one cannot live in VOC and not live in Big Park (or vice versa) because of what is and is not public land, while technically true, is still original research. One entity, the CDP, has official designated boundaries, while the other does not.

That is the problem I have with the naming scheme in place. The statistics (population, land area, etc) as presented are for the Census designated place as provided by the Census bureau. Wikipedia should reflect that fact, instead of reinterpreting the information to say that those are the demographics for an undefined entity such as VOC. The official name of the entity described by the demographic data in the article is for Big Park CDP. Whether we feel the Census bureau "goofed up" and picked the wrong name is immaterial to the discussion.

Creating a separate article for the CDP and the unincorporated community is an agreeable solution as they are different entities. However I disagree with the requirement that the articles are clear that they refer to the same place (and if we did that it would be in contravention to Wikipedia guidelines to have two articles on what is one single subject) but should rather point out that VOC is an unincorporated community that exists within (or at least in the same place as) Big Park CDP.

I still feel that the superior solution is to have one article, under the Big Park title, but with a (preferably sourced) statement saying that the area is more commonly referred to as VOC by its residents. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 19:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Village of Oak Creek, Arizona. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Village_of_Oak_Creek,_Arizona&oldid=1203444684"