Jump to content

Talk:Anaheim, California/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

City flag

Please help! I am new to the whole Wikipedia thing, and am trying to add some info to this Anaheim Page. I've got most of it, but I am having trouble finding a City Seal and a City flag, and I don't know how to make a map! Any help you can provide would be GREATLY appreciated!!!

I'm not sure there IS a city flag - at least, I could find no reference for it. I might drive past the city hall tomorrow on the way to work and see if there is one up around there. A city seal is on the anaheim.net web site, though not in a version we could use here. —Morven 08:39, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
There is a city flag, and I've posted the seal, flag, and map as well as brought the page up to WikiProject standards. Please add more info! Norman the Wise 02:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here

Streets

According to my Thomas Guide, which I usually trust, Magnolia is an avenue when running through Anaheim, and State College is a boulevard.

Hmm. I'll check on the street signs when I go home tonight; hopefully those are correct ... Euclid is definitely a street, though, b/c I live along it. —Morven 13:06, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Assessment

I assessed the article as a B-class article, although that's a stretch because although it's a long article, it really needs more references. This article also needs some more images of modern Anaheim. BlankVerse 10:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was no move. There appears to be a move to be more flexible with the WP:NC:CITY convention. Nevertheless, however good-faith this nomation might have been, it clearly was not able to gain consensus for a move on Anaheim, California. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 10:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Anaheim, California → Anaheim — It is a unique name with no disabig issues (there isn't even a notice at the top of the page). The redirect from Anaheim to Anaheim, CA is redundent. Villages in other countries use the name only why not this major city in the US. josh (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC) josh (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
  • Strong Oppose. There was a request to not nominate renames of this type while the guideline is being discussed at naming conventions. Let's work on consensus for this and not have a discussion on each and every city that may have a unique name. Vegaswikian 20:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Establishing consensus to change the current U.S. city naming guideline is proving very difficult to achieve (most proposals get about 50/50 support). In the mean time, the current guidelines, flawed as they may be, are in effect. Like all guidelines, they do allow for exceptions. --Serge 21:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If LA isn't at Los Angeles then Anaheim should stay where it is.JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Anaheim (without , California) should clearly be the name of this article per the Wiki-wide common names and disambiguation article naming conventions and guidelines. See discussion below. --Serge 21:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Anaheim is the common name and creates no ambiguity. If this violates the guidelines, then the guidelines need to be changed instead. -Anþony 02:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support. A similar thing happened for Calgary, Alberta --> Calgary, and since the change, it's made life a lot easier. Not having the city name disambiguated saved loads of time due to the lack of a redirect. Besides, "Anaheim" is a very unique name, and I'm not aware of any other Anaheims in the world. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per Vegaswikian. (And the derivation of Anaheim is probable in other German-speaking countries. It would be US-centric to assume that there isn't a major city in Germany named Anaheim or Annaheim.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This conforms with the current naming convention. There's no good reason to move it to a new name. The current name is logical and consistent. -Will Beback · † · 06:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Adamantly opposed!. Apparently the editors trying to change the longstanding US City naming convention are not getting their way for a massive change in the convention, so they are back trying to do city-by-city strategy that wasn't working either. It looks like it might be RFC time for this behavior, because it is become a huge waste of everybody's time. BlankVerse 10:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would prefer that City/State or City/Province or City/Nation be required, as appropriate. Somebody started a Hayfield article about a town in the UK, while there are several in the U.S. I assume that to put a disambiguation page in front of Hayfield, Minnesota, that I'm going to have the same trouble that as described above with Cork.
  • Oppose. I search for Anaheim, I get Anaheim, California. I am not displeased, I am not outraged, I am not shocked, I am not scandalised. I doubt that many are. In short, to the average user it probably just ain't broke. Whyaduck 13:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I wish these back-door attempts to change Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)#United States would stop. Mike Dillon 15:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose This seems like a bad faith suggestion, given that the principle proponents know that there is a current discussion on the CITYNAME, STATENAME convention. Why wait for resolution when you can just make the changes one at a time and conventions be damned? Phiwum 16:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's bad faith at all. Canada uses a similar method (CITYNAME, PROVINCE) convention, but articles for major cities (and even some minor ones) are slowly starting to move away from that format, in favor of just CITYNAME, with a disambig. page for lesser-known cities with the same name. That's more or less in line with other Wikipedia articles, so I'm not surprised this move suggestion (which has worked pretty successfully for Canada) came up. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 21:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Let's name Wikipedia articles in accordance to established Wikipedia naming conventions and guidelines

When following a category-specific naming convention results in a name that conflicts with well established Wikipedia naming conventions and guidelines, we should follow the general conventions. The alternative, following conflicting category-specific naming conventions can only lead to inconsistencies, like those that now exist between the titles of U.S. city articles with unique names and the titles of cities in most other countries with unique names. In an environment where it is impossible to even change the name of a city with a blatant ambiguity issue like Cork, a city in Ireland with about 120,000 people (Anaheim has almost 3 times as many), to Cork, Ireland or to Cork (city), to make room for Cork the dab page, the hope of getting cities in other countries to stop using the city name alone when there is no ambiguity issue is unthinkable. Why should U.S. cities be the inconsistent exception?

At WP:NAME#Use common names of persons and things the convention is clearly stated:

Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

The most common name of Anaheim is Anaheim, not Anaheim, California. And Anaheim does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Leaving this article at Anaheim, California therefore violates this convention, which is Wikipedia offical policy (see the top of the page at WP:NAME).

At WP:DAB#Deciding to disambiguate, the first and arguably most important guideline on that page, you will find this:

Deciding to disambiguate
Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? (For example, when someone looks up Joker, would they find information on a comedian? On a card? On Batman's nemesis? On the hit song or album by The Steve Miller Band?) When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page.

So, let's ask ourselves. When a reader enters Anaheim and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? Clearly, the answer is this article. Since there is no risk of confusion, the guideline is clear: do not disambiguate. Regardless of what any minor category-specific guideline may suggest, giving this article the disambiguated title of Anaheim, California rather than the simple Anaheim is a clear violation of this well established and consistently followed Wikipedia-wide guideline.

The conventions and guidelines are there for a reason: to create a consistent professional, predictable look and feel to Wikipedia. When a topic has an obvious and unique common name, like Anaheim, and we use something else for the title, like Anaheim, California, we are unnecessarily compromising the consistency, professionalism and predictability of Wikipedia's look and feel. I urge you to oppose moving further in that direction and to vote in support of this and all similar moves. Thanks. --Serge 22:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • You claim that moving Anaheim, California to Anaheim will make Wikipedia more consistant? How is that so? More often then not cities have to have the City, State arrangement due to multiple uses. Anaheim in the minority in not needing a disambiguator. Wouldn't it be MORE consistant for all cities both in the US and beyond to have the City,State setup since the majority will need them anyway? Take a city that is bigger then Anaheim like San Jose, California. That city will not be able to be moved to your preferred name despite being a much larger city then San Francisco, Sacramento or Anaheim. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • We are talking about "consistency" in different ways. You're thinking of consistency with respect to how titles look within the specific area of U.S. cities where currently almost all titles are of the city, state form (whether they are unique or need to be disambiguated). I do not dispute that moving Anaheim, California to Anaheim will make Wikipedia look less consistent in that particular respect. But I am not aware of having consistent looking titles within any particular category to be a Wikipedia value, goal, or convention, much less a guideline or policy, so I don't see the relevance of having consistency in that particular respect.
    Besides, within the broader category of all cities, there is nothing consistent about using the city, state format, particularly for city names that do not require disambiguation.
    But, the perspective I am thinking of is with respect to all articles in Wikipedia with subjects that have unique common names. It is definitely a Wikipedia value, goal, convention, guideline and policy to use the common name only, no additional information, in the title in those cases (which is what I explained above). Since Anaheim is a subject that has a unique common name, to be consistent in this respect, it needs to be at Anaheim. Does that make sense? --Serge 23:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I guess there is where your view and mine would conflict. I would argue that Anaheim, California IS a common name. If you are mailing something there, that is the name you use be it in the US or outside the US. If you're flying there you'd use Anaheim, California as the name, etc. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • And I would argue that you're confusing the mailing address of a place in Anaheim, which typically includes zip code and CA instead of "California", plus a street address, with the name of the city. However, I won't disagree that "Anaheim, California" is a fairly common way to refer to the city, but it's not the name of the city, nor is it the most common way to refer to it. The ", California" part is not part of the name of the city: it's additional contextual information identifying the location of the city named Anaheim. Any additional information beyond the name of the subject, unless it is needed for disambiguation, has no place in a Wikipedia article title. If, for example, California decides to split into two or three states (an issue that comes up now and then), the name of the article about Anaheim should not have to change to Anaheim, Southern California, because the name of the city will not have changed. I don't bring this up as a practical matter in case California splits, I raise it only to illustrate the distinction between the name of a city, and the City, State reference to it. --Serge 00:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

crime section

anaheim must have crime of some sort, therefore will somebody add a crime section to the article?

I added a crime section. :) Cheers. WWST12 06:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link to Tri-Cities -- neither the destination article (a disambig page) nor any of the items linked to by the destination article have anything to do with Anaheim. If someone adds some relevant content, please restore the link. Dasubergeek 17:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to the naming conventions for US cities

Once again there is a proposal to change the Wikipedia's long standing naming convention for US Cities.

There has been a small, but very vocal, and very persistent group of editors who have been trying, without much success, to overturn the "city, state" naming convention for US cities. First they tried at the naming convention level, but failed to achieve consensus for their views. They then changed tactics and tried to change the titles for several US cities, including three failed attempts to move Los Angeles, California, and one each for San Francisco, California and Anaheim, California. The only city that I know where they succeeded (after a couple of different surveys) was Chicago, but even that city has recently been moved back to Chicago, Illinois.

Now there is a revival of a fairly recent proposal to have the article titles for a small number of cities violate the very long-standing "city, state" naming convention. The discussion and voting are currently going on at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)#Associated Press. Since the past debates have ended up involving a large amount of time for California editors, I hope that they will weigh in on this latest proposal. BlankVerse 11:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Disney Goals

What's up with the pseudo advertising? --> See the Transportation section. Also, the section on the court battle seems suspect. Check out this sentence: "New owner the new name would help him market the team to the entire Southern California region rather than just Orange County." What in the world is that? Manderiko 20:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Metro Problems

Anaheim is not, has it been ever its on metro. It is part of LA - Long Beach - Santa Ana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.134.116 (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


Wrong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Ana-Anaheim-Irvine,_California —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.244.3.9 (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Page Move

As Anaheim needs no disambiguation (it is a unique city name), I intend to follow WP:NC:CITY and move this article to Anaheim. Anaheim, California should serve as a redirect to Anaheim when this operation is completed. —  X  S  G  01:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NC:CITY doesn't support that at all. See WP:NC:CITY#United States. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:NC:CITY uses Chicago as an example of a city that properly follows the convention. The convention could be clearer by stating that "if disambiguation of a city is required, use the "City, State" form for the name. —  X  S  G  01:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I note that this move was discussed back in November, 2006, and my reading was that the consensus was to keep the article as Anaheim, California while WP:NC:CITY was still being defined. WP:NC:CITY is now stable. I note that Seattle is undergoing discussion; let's see how that pans out before making this move. —  X  S  G  01:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The discussion could be done here, but it still violates WP:NC:CITY#United States. Only those (30 or so) cities which don't have qualifiers in the AP style guide are allowed to be without qualifiers here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Disney vs. Suncal vs. Anaheim

There is a section about a lawsuit that has been deleted and readded. My opinion is that a couple of sentences at the most are sufficient. Anything beyond that would be undue weight on this one minor topic. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw that too and I agreee. It is worthwhile, but only as a short mention.   Will Beback  talk  20:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable people section

This is going to be a constant subjective edit war over who is "notable enough" to be included. I've removed the section and inserted a link to List of people from California instead. --Monotonehell 01:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The simple standard used in other place articles is to limit the list to those with Wikipedia articles. While such lists do get new editors adding themselves and other non-notables it's very easy to weed those out. They only real controversies I've seen are whether the person was actually a resident, but even those disputes are very rare. Let's put the section back and if it becomes a problem we can deal with it. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

As of April 2008, all the entries in the "Notable Natives & Residents" in the City of Anaheim Wikipedia page have either been verified with a corresponding reference or have been given a "citation needed" notation. Therefore I have removed the current "This article needs additional citations for verification" flag (added in March 2008). I strongly invite the community to include references to the notables in the list with references that mention the person's connection to Anaheim.

Thank you! --Djrun (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious, why are the council members (including mayor) listed as notable residents? Many municipalities require residency in some form, whether directly in the city or within the county. "The mayor of Anaheim lives in Anaheim" is nothing notable. Now, if the mayor becomes POTUS, then it is notable that a POTUS came from Anaheim. Aleghart (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Curt Pringle and Harry Sidhu are included because they're notable enough to have Wikipedia biographies.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I read those bios. They look like PR, and are exceedingly long for what (globally) would be considered interesting only to local politicians, and possibly some of the residents of their jurisdictions. Sidhu "leading the fight" and Pringle's blow-by-blow election stats smack of a PR firm. Maybe I'm new in town, but I thought articles for the sake of publicity and SEO were not allowed.Aleghart (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
This is really a discussion better held elsewhere. But in brief, Pringle has a high profile regionally. However I just did a newspaper archive search on Sidhu and all of the coverage of him is in regard to routine city council work and campaigns. He's running for county supervisor, so I suppose it'd be best to wait a month before nominating that article for deletion.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

city population

"the city population was about 353,643" - that's a very accurate number for an approximate statement - either the "about" should be removed, or the number should be rounded according to the error (e.g. if it's +- 100 people, then say 353,600)... Mike Peel (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Original German city name

The article currently states that German "Settlers voted to call the community Annaheim, meaning Annahome or more longly "Home in the valley" in German. The name later was changed slightly, to Anaheim." Well, translating "Annaheim" with "Home in the valley" makes no sense. In German, Anna is just the female given name, as in other languages. Most Google hits for Annaheim in German mainly refer to, besides to Melanie Annaheim and the Canadian place Annaheim, Saskatchewan, to retirement homes named after St. Anna. A more meaningful translation of "Home in the valley" into German could be Auenheim, as Au, Aue, Auen ... refers to the floodplain of a river, often the place for newly founded settlements. Numerous German language place names, including de:Auenheim proper, start with de:Au- or end in -au. For example, Tolkien's The Shire was translated to German as Auenland. So, unless the German settlers intended to combine the Spanish-English Santa Ana River with their German heim, they just could have referred to their home in the river valley as Auenheim. -- Matthead  Discuß   11:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Structure

Hi. I'm going through all the US Cities (as per List of United States cities by population) in an effort to provide some uniformity in structure. Anyone have an issue with me restructuring this article as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. I won't be changing any content, merely the order. Occasionally, I will also move a picture just to clean up spacing issues. I've already gone through the top 20 or so on the above list, if you'd like to see how they turned out. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Anaheim High School Historical Photograph

The photograph of the Anaheim High School, circa 1900 featured in this article is, in fact, a photograph of the Anaheim Primary School. This error came from the USC Digital Library where the image was captioned as a "Front exterior of Anaheim Primary School, ca.1900". One of our patrons has noted this mistake and reported it via our Contact Us Form. The title and description have been corrected.

A photograph of the real Anaheim High School can be found here: http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15799coll65/id/7936/rec/2 (public domain) and here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/68617016@N06/6849110947/ and http://www.pinterest.com/pin/352477108307685977/ (both may not be in public domain). Барабан (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of Anaheim, California

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anaheim, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anaheim, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anaheim, California. 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) 21:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anaheim, California. 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) 08:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anaheim,_California/Archive_1&oldid=1142529834"