Talk:Oakland Hills, Oakland, California

More Discussion at Berkeley Hills
See the discussion link at the article on the Berkeley Hills. Tmangray 23:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The page was improperly moved, losing the talk and history logs, and renamed with an improper name.Tmangray 17:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop messing with the page. Bring up the change here first.  Also, do not rename/move such that the talk and history logs are lost. Tmangray 20:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization issue
Only proper names are capitalized. "Oakland hills" is not a proper name. There is no such entry in the USGS database, nor on any map I have ever seen, nor is there any specific range to which the term applies. It may be common in the usage of some people, but it is not encylopedic. A redirect from the capitalized version is sufficient to get interested people to the article. Tmangray 20:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude, go to google and enter 'oakland hills california'. The overwhelming majority of entries capitalize Oakland Hills, including this one from our friends at FEMA (http://www.fema.gov/news/event.fema?id=2120) about the fire you insist didn’t happen in the Oakland Hills. Maps are not the only source of information valid in an encyclopedic environment.


 * You must be a load of laughs at parties when you insist that folks who say they live in the Oakland Hills don’t, that no such place exists. --Fizbin 23:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you really discuss the name Oakland Hills at parties?


 * Perhaps you should start a movement to get the name officially recognized. Maybe you could also get that part of San Francisco Bay that lies within Oakland re-named Oakland Bay.


 * There are hills in Oakland. There just isn't any such proper name "Oakland Hills".  Now, admittedly, the section of the same range which is the continuation of the Berkeley Hills to the north and the San Leandro Hills to the south (both of which are official toponyms) is ambiguously designated.  However, there is no ambiguity whatsoever for that section where the Oakland firestorm occurred.  Despite the FEMA usage, which is properly incorrect, the hills above the Caldecott Tunnel are part of the Berkeley Hills, and appear on all maps as such, including the CSAA and USGS maps.  All Bay Area oldtimers know this.  BART calls its tunnel, which lies entirely outside Berkeley, the "Berkeley Hills Tunnel".  The Regional Parks refers to peaks in the same section as part of the Berkeley Hills, none of which lie within Berkeley either.


 * Perhaps the entire range should be re-named to avoid confusion. Each of the possible choices however has similar possible confusions.  I like the original "Contra Costa Hills", but you can see how this might get confused with the geopolitical county, or with the other ranges which lie within Contra Costa County.  "East Bay Hills" might be another good one.  But as of now, there is no proper name "Oakland Hills".  The issue is discussed here and in the Berkeley Hills article so readers are adequately apprised of both the formal and informal usages. Tmangray 01:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * “The issue is discussed here and in the Berkeley Hills article so readers are adequately apprised of both the formal and informal usage.”
 * And in both you are the almost the sole proponent of the idea that the Oakland Hills are some imaginary designation like Oz. I am not impressed with your reasoning.--Fizbin 02:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And you are not discussing the issue substantively. You do not address the point that only proper names are capitalized.  You do not address the usages of the various authorities cited.  You seem to be insisting on making a transformation of an informal, unofficial toponym here on Wikipedia rather than in the real world.  We can note this informal common usage here, but we also have to recognize official nomenclature. Tmangray 03:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No Oakland Hills in Lawson Report
The famous 1908 Lawson Report on the 1906 Quake contains passages by Prof. Andrew Lawson which refer to the Berkeley Hills with reference to the range above the Hayward Fault through Oakland, and he never uses the name Oakland Hills in any passage. Tmangray (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Piedmont hills
Based purely on personal encounters, I find that some Piedmont residents actually resent having their city mentioned as "in the Oakland Hills". Has anyone else encountered this, and has anyone found any citeable mention of it? I must add that they never say they are in the Berkeley Hills either. Tmangray (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge/redirect Without Notice or Discussion
Not a good thing. The redirect is restored as an article on the geologic feature to which it refers, albeit informally and toponymically in error. The redirect also lost the discussion thread, which remains here. Tmangray (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Creative Neighborhood Naming?
It's a highly questionable assertion that "Oakland Hills" is a named neighborhood or section of Oakland. There have been actual named neighborhoods in the hills of Oakland for decades, but none called "Oakland Hills". Certainly, people refer to neighborhoods as lying in the geologic hills, but I have never encountered any usage referring to any neighborhood ITSELF as the "Oakland Hills". A reference or two would help make your case, if one can be made, but I'm dubious. Besides, are informal terms fit subjects for articles on Wiki? That would seem to open up a huge can of worms, not to mention using up a whole lot of Wiki memory. Sure, that would seem to disqualify the geologic "Oakland hills" as well, but at least that has some demonstrable usage, albeit in error. (One wonders, in the interests of symmetry, why there shouldn't also be an article entitled "Oakland Flatlands"...or maybe there is one. I haven't checked that yet).

The redirects and the merge ambush with the Oakland hills (the geologic feature) article were no no's. They are duly reverted, with a provisional "see also" link to this article pending further consideration by the body politic. Tmangray (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
How about simply adding a section in the article on the hills, listing the districts (linked) which lie in the hills? Readers need only click to those articles to get more detailed information about these actually-named districts, without the need to concoct an ahistorical district name, and avoiding needless duplication. The article would bear a close resemblance to this one, without the baggage. Tmangray (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sections, not Neighborhoods
It occurs to me that part of the problem lies in the designation of the larger parts of Oakland as "neighborhoods" when they are actually simply geographic sections, except possibly in the case of West Oakland. Even most of the neighborhoods are in practice referred to as "districts", as in "Montclair District" or "Fruitvale District". I don't know of any historically-named part of Oakland that is known as a "neighborhood", but perhaps there are some. But to the point of THIS article: the hills are a section of Oakland, but with no formality of title or name akin to the districts which lie in it, as this article implies. Tmangray (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC) We should be careful and not get the flat part of Oakland confused with hilly parts such as Upper Rockridge, lake Temescal, City of Piedmont, etc. Might want to consult a topo map for that.Dunkmack9 (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm rushed and can't address your many questions except to say that yes, I agree the defining concept of Oakland Hills is more 'section' than 'neighborhood'. Perhaps redefining the Oakland Hills as a section would be a step in the right direction. Binksternet (talk) 11:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)