Talk:Pine Hills, California

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Let's just accept that the area is known as "Pine Hill." 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
thread_title: Survey

message: :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.  and . The location of the  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  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 (, 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)
replies: text: The coordinates are from the GNIS record for the CDP , 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)
thread_title: Discussion