From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

Politics

The article claims the county as politically divisive, and while there are pockets of Democrats, it seems to me that the county is on the whole rather Republican. According to information here, the county has voted Democrat six times in the past hundred years. Four of those were for the same person ( FDR), and in the other two elections ( Wilson, 1912; Clinton, 1992), the winner received less than half of the popular vote (Clinton in 1992 received only 37.2% [1]). Surely this must have some effect on whether it is called a "swing" county? - Branddobbe 14:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC) reply

What's with the crime statistics that lead this article? Are they for 2009 to date? Without additional information they are basically meaningless. Jmdeur ( talk) 02:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

This sentence suggests that La Jolla is not part of the City of San Diego, which it is. "The city of San Diego, as well as La Jolla, Coronado and Imperial Beach, is part of the 53rd congressional district which has a Cook Partisan Voting Index (CPVI) of D +12." 24.143.77.98 ( talk) 19:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply


Freeways

What about the 15?

You're absolutely right! I-15 comes in from the north, from Orange County, and ends at it's southern terminus in San Diego County! I've added it in, good on ya! Edit Centric 06:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply
I-15 never touches Orange County, that's Riverside County. 24.143.77.98 ( talk) 19:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Geography

The geography section is inadequate. There is no mention of mountains, lakes, rivers, beaches, or other natural features. If anyone feels up to improving the section it'd be a big help. - Will Beback 21:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC) reply

MAJOR Realignments

Okay, I have again taken the liberty of cleaning up some of the more obvious aspects of this page that required attention, such as the Infobox, Cities and towns, and Transpo, as this page needed more than just a simple Geo and Transpo realign. The Infobox now has the correct graphics and alignment, and some of the other elements have been tabled out. If anyone can think of any more changes or improvements that this might need, let me know, and I will get right on it! Edit Centric 02:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

La Playa

Can someone tell me if the strip of land directly opposite La Playa is man made or was it there when Cabrillo entered the harbor many years ago?

Thanks, John ne1u_ham@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.159.117 ( talk) 22:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Believe it or not, the Silver Strand is a natural land formation, so Coronado was not an island, at least when the Spanish came.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 00:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
I think when John asked about "the strip of land directly opposite La Playa" he was actually talking about Shelter Island. La Playa is the bayside beach of Point Loma, where Cabrillo first landed; Shelter Island lies just offshore from La Playa. The answer is that Shelter Island was originally a sandbar. It was artificially built up into dry land in the 1940s and 1950s using harbor dredgings. So it was NOT there, not as dry land, when Cabrillo arrived. -- MelanieN ( talk) 06:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)MelanieN reply

Historic Route 163

I am going to add the word Historic to State Route 163 as that is the proper term for it. If anyone has any objections please leave them here. Thanks-- Jojhutton ( talk) 00:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply


Carmel Valley

Deleted Carmel Valley from the list of incorporated cities. Carmel Valley is a neighborhood in the City of San Diego. 71.10.230.146 ( talk) 17:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Tiny Indian Reservations?

My request for a WP:FOOT to support the word "tiny" is done for nearly all comparatives or superlatives made by Wikipedia editors. Having WP:RELY citations is a way to ensure that WP:OR is not being employed - someone saying this off the top of their head. "Tiny" carries with it the implication that they "should" be larger, for some reason. "Smaller than the average reservation" is okay if documented with specifics text. The reader should not have to perform an analysis to discover this fact. NOR should the editor be the first to note this - that would be clearly WP:OR. The fact should already be someplace reliable in print/web. Thanks. Student7 ( talk) 21:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Merge?

The San Diego metropolitan area article states that the S.D. metropolitan statistical area is defined as San Diego County. In that case, why do we need two articles on the same subject? Is there anything (beyond a few sentences) that can be said about one that cannot be said about the other? I propose that we merge the MSA article into the county article, with an explanation up front that the MSA and the county are the same thing, geographically. There's a lot of good info in both articles, and a combined article would be even stronger. Thoughts? Dohn joe ( talk) 21:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC) reply

It does seem duplicative - so that San Diego metropolitan area could become a redirect to San Diego County. Does anyone know if there is policy or standard practice with regard to "metro area" articles? -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
In California, at least, there are twenty MSAs that include a single county. Of those, 17 redirect the MSA article title to the county article. (See Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA MSA, which redirects you to Sonoma County, California as an example.) The only exceptions are San Diego metropolitan area, Oxnard–Thousand Oaks–Ventura metropolitan area, and Visalia Metropolitan Area. All three should probably merge and redirect to San Diego County, California, Ventura County, California, and Tulare County, California respectively. Dohn joe ( talk) 20:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Somewhere it is archived that it was agreed upon, I think by WikiProject California, that there would be a separate metropolitan article due to its size and relevance in global society. I disagree and think it would be best they remain two separate articles, based on the agreed upon approval from months back. 08OceanBeach SD ( talk) 23:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I tried, unsuccessfully, a while back to merge Los Angeles metropolitan area with Greater Los Angeles Area. For the love of me, I still don't see a difference in the two articles, but apparently there were a few who thought there were differences. This seems to me to be the same issue, but who knows any more.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 23:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The reason that didn't go down so well, Jojhutton, is that they refer to actually different things (not just different words for the same entity): "Los Angeles metropolitan area" refers to the (OMB-defined) Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area (counties of Los Angeles and Orange) while "Greater Los Angeles Area" refers to the (OMB-defined) Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside Combined Statistical Area (counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernadino, and Ventura). As for merging San Diego county and metro area, it would make sense to merge most of the article, but the San Diego MSA article should remain with relevant statistics relating the metro area to other metro areas--e.g. "it is the 14th largest MSA in the country, blah blah blah". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.231.133 ( talk) 19:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Hey folks - take a look at this edit. I tried to explain better that the county and the metro area are the same thing. I'd love to see the discussion you're talking about, 08OB, but I still think that any stat, description, or image that's on the metro page could move here. The first paragraph could incorporate the metro stats, but the other categories on the metro page - geography, history, climate, education, etc. - are identical to the county categories. Dohn joe ( talk) 01:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Talk:San_Diego/Archive_3#Metro_statistics. Well that took some digging! It can really be argue both ways, and while I tend to agree with you, I disagree here. I feel like the articles take on a different form and perhaps could further that with the metro article perhaps being more inclusive of urban area information. Just a suggestion. 08OceanBeach SD ( talk) 01:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
We did this originally because the metro area "floats" however the census bureau wants it to. We may awake tomorrow with a new definition that someone in DC has dreamed up. We are ready today, however, if that happens. With a merger, we'd just have to "unmerge" it; an untidy task. Student7 ( talk) 18:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I can understand the reasoning, but that might never happen - in which case we'd be ready in perpetuity, all the while having two articles with identical geographical scope. I think having duplicative articles is much untidier than having to deal with a possible future unmerge. And as I noted above, San Diego is one of only 3 single-county MSAs in the state (out of 20) that have separate articles for the county and the MSA. Do we need to create 17 new articles on those metro areas? The only way I can see the need for a separate article on the metro area is if there are reliable sources that describe a "SD metro area" or "Greater SD" as anything less than the county - as just the urban areas, for example. But even then, I'd have "SD-Carlsbad-San Marcos MSA" redirect to the county article. Does that make sense? Dohn joe ( talk) 19:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Again, this was discussed some time ago. The metro expanded to the limits of the county relatively "recently," last several years or so. I presume it will continue to expand by the definition of some federal worker in the census bureau. Why change? We are all set now. What is the major advantage? We can cross reference now, if necessary. The likelihood that the metro will change forever beyond SD county borders within the next five years is pretty good I would think. But we don't have to be WP:CRYSTAL. Just retain the article as is. Or text template it and use in both articles! (confuses new editors no end. That's not all bad sometimes!  :). Student7 ( talk) 21:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Actually, it appears that the census bureau has been using San Diego County to define the SD metro area since at least 1950. The only difference being that what was called the "San Diego, CA SMA" in 1950 is now called the "San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA MSA". But the definition has always been the county.
In the earlier discussion, people noted that SD was the largest metro area without its own article. But it's also the largest single-county MSA in the country. All the other large MSAs span two or more counties, so you need separate articles. But with SD, the MSA and the county are identical. This could all be explained in the combined article, in my opinion.
So - given the sixty-year stability of the metro-area-as-county definition and the geographical identity between the two, what is left to be said about the MSA that cannot be said about the county - why do we need two articles? Dohn joe ( talk) 22:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I thought Student7 hit it pretty straight on. San Diego is estimate to join the Greater Los Angeles Area as the number of commuters from Southwest Riverside and North County grow, definitions could change, Imperial County could be added as well, by some turn of events in which the commuting populous rapidly increases. Unlike the other counties that redirect their metropolitan area pages, this metropolitan area (San Diego) has a global city, and international influence. Its population is much larger, and is the only metro area anchored by such a city that did not used to have a metropolitan area article. It should most definitely stay as definitions are likely to change with populations growing like they are now, and definitions bounds to change. 08OceanBeach SD ( talk) 23:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply

But...I thought I showed that the census bureau has had the same definition for sixty years. That seems extremely stable. Further, they decide these things based on things like commuting between counties (I think they used something like a 25% threshold). There's no chance that Orange, Riverside, or Imperial counties will have 25% of their people commute to SD, or vice-versa. Dohn joe ( talk) 20:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Actually, it takes only 15-24.999% of commuters going from one MSA to another to warrant the addition of the smaller metropolitan area to the larger, in our case San Diego to Greater Los Angeles. The trend of people commuting from SW Riverside County to North County is increasing. I think before anything, we should wait on a release of 2010 census information on commuting patterns to save ourselves the trouble of unmerging the two articles. 08OceanBeach SD ( talk) 21:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
That's a good compromise, I think. So if the 2010 data keeps the SD metro area defined as the county, would folks agree to a merge? Dohn joe ( talk) 23:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Geography

Partly due to my overly large chart (which can be shrunk, I suppose, to fit between the pic and column), Geography appears way too large and ready for forking. We need a summary, say 3 screens-worth, if this happens. Otherwise, not worth it. About 9 screens-worth now? Notice that we have no subsection on climate. This is good, not bad! I am working on a state article where we forked geography and wound up with two climate summaries to maintain.  :( Not desirable IMO. Student7 ( talk) 18:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC) reply

As in create other articles? An ecology article would be nice. 08OceanBeach SD ( talk) 23:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC) reply
My idea is not so much to create another article but to fork material here which appears too large for the current article. The proposal is all of geography with a small summary left here. Student7 ( talk) 19:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
I like having the geography all summarized here. It forms the bulk of the San Diego County article and I think that's a good thing. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The only thing I can see that would need to be forked is the extensive lists of landforms and then the cities, communities, CDPs and neighborhoods. The geography paragraphs could use minor rewording to mention climate, ecology, etc. Otherwise then that, there should be some summary of the landforms and cities. So yes, I would say I support your idea, to an extent. Another thing I would point out is that because of the extensive lists, the San Diego County article might never achieve GA status as was the issue with the Miami metropolitan area article. 08OceanBeach SD ( talk) 19:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Economics

As a Mid-Westerner I can not resist the urge to note that only on the Left Coast would an article on a major region include not one word about the ecomomics of the area. The conclusion that people just don't do much in San Diego (economically) seems not to be credible. I wonder, do most adults spend much of their time in economical pursuits? (jobs?) Or perhaps its all welfare and food stamps? All kidding aside, the lack of any discussion on the economics is a serious flaw here. GDP? avg annual income? per household? % in poverty? 71.31.149.224 ( talk) 14:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Well then find a source and add it to the article. Theres nothing that I know of that's keeping this information out of the article. Just waiting for someone like you to do it I suppose.-- JOJ Hutton 15:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Merge redux

A couple years ago, it was proposed that we merge San Diego metropolitan area into this article. The main reason being that the two are identical in geographic scope, as defined by the U.S. Census Dept. One objection was that the 2010 census might use different definitions, so a decision was put on hold. Now, however, we know that the 2010 census once again used the entire county to define the MSA. In addition, a user made this edit, adding info about the MSA definition to this article. So I'm re-proposing the merge. Looking at the two articles, there is almost zero info (apart from the census definitions and related stats) that can be said about one that can't be said about the other. We should be able to take any info from the metropolitan area article, and insert it here, if it isn't already here. I'll volunteer to do it, if no one else wants to. What do we say? Dohn joe ( talk) 19:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Support This idea always made sense to me. It covers the same ground, except that San Diego County is more comprehensive. And of course there would be a redirect from San Diego Metropolitan Area so nothing would be lost. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Support The MSA article is virtually just a less comprehensive version of this article, although I do feel the MSA template should be appended to this page in the merge as well as attempt to improve the article to A or B class. Trogdor17 ( talk) 06:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment. It's been over three weeks now. I'll give it a couple more days, but it looks like consensus to make the merge. Dohn joe ( talk) 22:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC) reply
 Done Merge done. Please review to see that I didn't leave anything important out, or duplicated anything on this page. Dohn joe ( talk) 21:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment You really should of asked for others opinions. Seem's like you tried to hide the merger. House1090 ( talk) 07:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply
We gave it a month. Do you object to the merger? Could you explain? Thanks. -- MelanieN ( talk) 09:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on San Diego County, 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Middle Finger Photo

Has anyone noticed that at the top of this page, there is a photograph of a giant middle finger? Yet it appears to only show when you are logged out. I tried logging into my account to edit the page, but the photo was gone when I logged in, then reappeared when I logged out. I don't know why that would be the case, but there you have it. Log out of your account and look yourself, if you doubt me. Anyone who can address this problem, please do so right away. Thank you. Bibbly Bob ( talk) 01:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I also saw it when logged out, yet for some reason not when logged in. Beats me how that works. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 01:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply
It was vandalism in Template:Photomontage - the logged out thing probably has to do with cache stuff, so I purged and it's fixed now (at least on my compuer). ansh 666 01:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply

What are the "Cities by population and crime rates" table columns?

What kind of monster doesn't include table headers? Cartographile ( talk) 16:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:San_Diego_County,_California&oldid=1210196404"