This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Culture Saying that the City Council ban on outdoor smoking at the beach and in parks is for the safety and comfort of visitors to San Diego strikes me inaccurate. I can go along with the idea that the ban promotes other people's "comfort", but their "safety"? How is somebody smoking outdoors endangering other people if the smoke isn't blowing directly in their faces, which in most cases it wouldn't be?
The earth's atmosphere extends roughly 200 miles high and surrounds the entire planet. That's a lot of area in which cigarette smoke can disperse. And I'm quite sure that the percentage of air pollution caused by cigarette smokers is negligible in comparison to pollution in San Diego caused by auto exhaust fumes!
I know that a lot of people are eager to discourage smoking, no matter what it takes, but presenting the city council's ban on outdoor smoking as something that promotes health is going overboard and does a disservice both to legitimate reasons for such a ban (I am unaware of any; even the problem of discarded cigarette butts is overstated given the unsupported presumption that all smokers are inconsiderate litterbugs and given the fact that a huge increase in noticeable littering of all kinds in the city of San Diego is not being addressed by city officials) and to the credibility of scientific pronouncements. starkt 06:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC) starkt.
Smokers are not a "culture". This sentence is completely out of place, and reads as if San Diego can ban cultures on beaches and in public parks. This sentence should be removed from this portion of the article. Lorraine LeBeau 20:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the sentence on the smoking ban, because once again, smokers are not a culture, and it simply did not fit in this area. Lorraine LeBeau 20:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
There are separate bans. San Diego City, Solana Beach, and Del Mar have ban smoking in all beaches and parks. The county of San Diego banned smoking on all state parks. I remember on the news, the county's reasons for banning smoking on state parks was to reduce pollution and prevent forest fires. I believe it should be banned in cars (which law makers are trying to pass), on public sidewalks, public parks and beaches, and in any workplace. Smoking directly effects those who have lung related problems. One puff of second hand smoking drifting into someone’s face who has a serve lung problem is potential harmful. Not only that, but smoking invades on other's right to breath clean air. I have often had to breath in someone's smoke because it doesn't always go up in the sky, if there is any wind, it will blow on someone and make them breath in cancer causing materials. Smoking can irate people with severe eye problems if the smoke blows in their face. Disturbing the peace is against the law and cigarettes disturb many non-smokers. - ChristopherMannMcKay 16:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
What are the official criteria for being listed as a notable resident? The heading "notable residents" sounds like a candidate has to be living in San Diego at the present time to be listed, but I see that some of those listed haven't lived here in years (they're just listed because they were born or grew up here). I see the list gradually expanding and I have to wonder if I'm the only one who thinks the list is bulky and unnecessary for an encyclopedic article about the city of San Diego. I would be in favor of replacing the entire section with maybe just a brief note saying San Diego has a healthy dose of famous residents because of its proximity to Hollywood. Soltras 19:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I just created Category:San Diego films (using Category:Chicago films as template). Please help me and expand this category, thanks. bbx 12:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to change this to "1850 establishments"? And also to take San Diego off that list....
I reverted both this edit by 66.133.247.65 and this edit by 66.193.152.98 because they are unsourced attempts to inflate the population. I mean, wow, what a coincidence that when Tijuana is included, there are exactly 3,000,000 more (7 sig figs)! Baja California has less than 3 million, so Tijuana clearly doesn't have 3 million people. Plus, this is a non-standard way of considering metro areas. I believe the population of the San Diego-Tijuana area should be mentioned provided it is accurate, appropriately sourced (I think UN data would suffice), and does not appear in the infobox, but rather somewhere else in the article. Thanks. Ufwuct 16:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
On August 27, 2006, I changed the population estimate to the official U.S. Census Bureau estimate for San Diego's population on July 1, 2005. [1] The estimate that was there before of 1,305,736 came from a San Diego city planning agency (although the ref was deleted [2] by KevinJ).
Then again, on November 16, another non-U.S. Census Bureau estimate was added (1,311,162), replacing the U.S. C.B. estimate. [3] This estimate is from the Department of Finance from the state of California and claims to be a population estimate for January 1, 2006.
First, using non-U.S. C.B. estimates is inconsistent with all other U.S. city articles.
Second, local and even state goverments are prone to overestimate or even purposely inflate their population estimates. In doing so, they can make a better case for getting a larger share of federal funding and sometimes get the U.S. C.B. to revise the population estimates for that particular city (many times unsuccessfully, and almost always, the U.S. C.B. does not amend the estimate to the one the locality was claiming).
Third, these local and state agencies have primary responsibilities other than counting people (planning, budgeting, etc.) and do not specialize in counting people. The U.S. C.B.'s PRIMARY if not ONLY responsibility is accurately counting people according to location, race, sex, etc.
Fourth, these estimates appear to be flat-out wrong, that is, if we trust the U.S. Census Bureau estimates. The table below combines U.S. C.B. and local/state estimates. Decennial estimates are using given for April. Otherwise, July estimates are from the U.S. C.B. and January estimates are from state/local agencies.
Population of San Diego since 2000
Month | Year | Population | Numerical Change # |
Change/year % change (simple compounding) |
---|---|---|---|---|
April | 2000 | 1,227,641 | ||
July | 2001 | 1,244,481 | 16,840 | 1.37 |
July | 2002 | 1,253,008 | 8,527 | 0.69 |
July | 2003 | 1,263,551 | 10,543 | 0.84 |
July | 2004 | 1,263,816 | 265 | 0.02 |
January | 2005 | 1,305,736 | 41,920 | 6.64 |
July | 2005 | 1,255,540 | -50,196 | -7.69 |
January | 2006 | 1,311,162 | 55,622 | 8.86 |
Without even explaining the details, it should be evident that (at least) one of these agencies is wrong. For the reasons I've already put forth, I think the local/state agencies are more likely to be wrong. Therefore, let's just trust the U.S. C.B. on these estimates and not be so impatient on getting the latest population estimate. The population estimates for each state came out in December and it shouldn't be too long before the estimates for the cities come out. Besides, Wikipedia is not a newspaper; we need to get the facts right, not just come out with the story first. Ufwuct 19:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Please, include the historic name "Centre City" with downtown. It's only in the last few years that real-estate boosters have been promoting the area as "Downtown". Many people use the term, obviously, but Centre City is the name. "Centre City" was even on the trolley destination signs for years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.136.15.74 ( talk • contribs) .
The citation problem for the Economy section states that San Diego "is one of the six centers of innovation". I found nearly the exact same phrase at this site: [5]. I don't know if this was copied and pasted in at some point or even if this site is credible. Will somebody please look it over to assess if the statement should be removed or if this site should be used to provide its citation?-- Nehrams2020 01:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada.
Should this article be protected? There are constant threats of vandalism especially surrounding the "Anchorman" quote which seems to occur several times a day/week. Is this reasonable justification for protection. If so, it should be requested. -- Nehrams2020 08:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, there are a few food specialties listed that I think are questionable as to whether they merit inclusion:
The above seem like they are not uncommon in any medium-to-big size city in the US. Yes, San Diego has fresh produce, but so do lots of other places and these salads are certainly not unique to SD. Yes, San Diego has a "Little Italy" but Italian food is ubiquitous across the US. Etc.
I think these are candidates for removal not because they are untrue (though certainly they are all uncited) but because I question whehter they are special enough for inclusion. Other thoughts? Johntex\ talk 22:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I want to reorganize the article to be similar to San Francisco’s where the neighborhoods are under a geography section (because it is not demographics) with its own sub article; I also suggest adding a weather section and a beach and parks section with their own sub articles, like San Francisco article has. What does everything think about that? ChristopherMannMcKay 15:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)We should also put that San Diego is a hilly city becuase is really is.
I think I should move the downtown section and put it under Geography and then combine Downtown and the neighborhoods list into a sub article. Any ideas? ChristopherMannMcKay 15:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I deleated the downtown section. Other major cities do not have an entire section about downtown. I don't believe it is necessary. I intergrated a link to downtown in the Communities and neighborhoods section. - ChristopherMannMcKay 17:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
needs to be more succinct and focus on summarising. -- Spewmaster 04:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, another user who seems to be a weather wizard (no kidding), reassessed San Diego about 180 out from what I remember it as. Could someone else check? I asked the user if he was certain and on my talkpage, he says he used the chart referenced in the change. I agree with the previous article that it is a Mediterranean climate with a CsA or CsB if you go by the chart.
All that checks with a CsA which the Mediterranean climate article states that the greater Los Angeles area (which I will include San Diego into. Ronbo76 15:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Under the economy section, it says "Several areas of San Diego (in particular, the La Jolla, Torrey Pines and surrounding Sorrento Valley areas) are home to offices and research facilities for biomedical corporate giants as well as those of many smaller, independent research companies and startups." Torrey Pines, to my knowledge is not an area of San Diego. I believe they are talking about La Jolla, the section by the west part of UCSD by the Torrey Pines State park on Torrey Pines road. I am going to remove Torrey Pines because it is part of La Jolla; if I am wrong, please add Torrey Pines back into the article. I am going to re-write part of the economy section and list a few of the large biotechs located in San Diego to give supporting evidence. - ChristopherMannMcKay 16:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The article mentions that Balboa Park ends abruptly at Mission Valley, which isn't true. The northern-most part of Balboa Park ends in a neighborhood known as Marston Hills (think of it as southern Hillcrest.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.101.181.180 ( talk) 17:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
No, I mean Marston Hills. It may not be on the city website, but if you look at real estate ads, it's mentioned. It's the area bordered by Upas, Richmond, the 163, north to Cypress St. A bunch of homes built by George Marston in the 20s and 30s. I grew up there, and there were even Marston Hills block parties. Yes, when people ask where I grew up, I usually say Hillcrest, but it's more accurate to say Marston Hills. It's kind of like going into a hoity toity suburban division like RB and seeing the different names for various sections of tract homes. I'm not going to make a stink about Marston Hills not being mentioned, because it would be almost impossible to prove it exists. But in case I come upon some evidence, I'll be back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.213.132.253 ( talk) 16:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
"Marston Hills" isn't a community, nor a region. It's a gimmick used by agents to make the area seem more prestigious. The borders are North Park/Hillcrest to the north, Banker's Hill to the west, Southpark to the south, and Golden Hill to the east. 72.199.173.76 ( talk) 03:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it is proper to put it there, unless a "Law and Government" section is created. - ChristopherMannMcKay 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Who else thinks the Shopping Malls section under culture should be removed? How about posting that up on wikitravel... -- ChristopherMannMcKay 20:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to make the intro shorter...
This section is too long, horribly written, and pointless. As other wikipedia articles show, you should only indicate the movie/book name and author. Giving details like "The film still regarded by many critics as the best of all time", "..starring Will Ferrell as Ron Burgundy. The Burgundy character is partially inspired by..", "..is home to the hit Nickelodeon show..", " Rey Mysterio represents his hometown of San Diego by calling his finishing move 619" and "San Diego is the hometown of Damon Allen" make the article look bad.
"The original novel Somewhere in Time was set in the Hotel del Coronado" I do not know how many times people write things about San Diego County on this page...
I don't think it is necessary to list everything that was partially filmed (not set) or breifly set in San Diego. However, I have saved the San Diego in popular culture section here if anyone wants to create a wikipedia page for films and television shows filmed in San Diego or briefly set in San Diego. I have created List of fiction set in San Diego.
This could be a very good point. It could be written in a seperate page, or completely re-done. -- BrentAlsoPete (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"San Diego has a strong Mexican influence due to its proximity to the international border between the United States and Mexico. In addition, San Diego has other significant immigrant communities. Older immigrant groups include those from Sicily and Portugal, which settled in Little Italy and Point Loma respectively. Newer immigrants have arrived from former Soviet Republics (notably Ukraine, Russia and Trans-Caucasia), Greece, the Philippines, South East Asia, China, India, the Pacific Islands, Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Brazil, Turkey, the Horn of Africa and South Africa. "
I made a seperate culture article, I will try to expand on it in the next few weeks. - ChristopherMannMcKay 09:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed Del Mar Beach Photo because it is in a different city, Del Mar; It is not with-in city limits. - ChristopherMannMcKay 09:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I am improving the crime section.
I linked the institutions to wikipedia articles instead of external links. I also put them in order. I wanted to indicate the bases that are located outside San Diego city limits, I am not sure if it looks alright. If anyone has any suggestions for changing how to indicate the bases located outside the city please let me know or change it. - ChristopherMannMcKay 18:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
There are bases that are outside of San Diego city limits listed. San Diego locals know "Camp Pendleton" or "Naval Base Coronado" as being outside San Diego; however, other people not familiar with San Diego might not know that (they might think it is a part of San Diego, like "Miramar Air Station"). So, a while ago I made a separate section indicting the bases outside city limits, but someone changed it and took it off and merged it back into one section, like it is right now. So, I renamed it 'Military institutions in or near San Diego', but now someone has changed the title back to 'Military institutions in San Diego'. So, how should we show which bases are not located in San Diego? Should we take them off completely? I think they are good to have to on the page, to show the huge military presence around San Diego, but they shouldn't be under 'Military institutions in San Diego' if they are not in San Diego. What do others think?
The TV station edits are clogging this article. Suggest a See also that links to the San Diego outlets like this:
San Francisco and Los Angeles have media sections but with not as much detail. See Los Angeles, CA#Media for that see also is done. Ronbo76 00:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
For those who may not be aware, the section "Communities and neighborhoods" is meant to be a list of those communities and neighborhoods within the city limits of San Diego. Not incorporated cities that happen to be around San Diego. National City and Chula Vista and the rest of the cities of San Diego county are separate entities and should not be listed as part of the list of San Diego communities and neighborhoods. -- Eric Bekins 00:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I was reading about Global Cities on Wikipedia and looked to find out how SD ranked. It didn't. I found that surprising considering the criteria for entry and that the following cities were ranked:
Houston, Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Richmond (!), Tijuana. Most of these were ranked very low but San Diego was not at all. The following are some of the criteria for a " Global City."
International, first-name familiarity; whereby a city is recognised without the need for a political subdivision. For example, although there are numerous cities and other political entities with the name Paris or variations on it, one would say "Paris", not "Paris, France". Maybe...
A fairly large population (the centre of a metropolitan area with a population of at least one million, typically several million). 1.2 million
An advanced transportation system that includes several freeways and/or a large mass transit network offering multiple modes of transportation (rapid transit, light rail, regional rail, ferry, or bus). Um, yeah.
In the West, several international cultures and communities (such as a Chinatown, a Little Italy, or other immigrant communities). Check.
International financial institutions, law firms, corporate headquarters (especially conglomerates), and stock exchanges (for example the London Stock Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange, the World Bank, or the Tokyo Stock Exchange) that have influence over the world economy. Don't know.
An advanced communications infrastructure on which modern trans-national corporations rely, such as fiberoptics, Wi-Fi networks, cellular phone services, and other high-speed lines of communications. I would think so, but not sure.
World-renowned cultural institutions, such as museums and universities. San Diego Zoo, Balboa Park, more universities than you can shake a stick at.
A strong sporting community, including major sports facilities, home teams in major league sports, and the ability and historical experience to host international sporting events such as the Olympic Games, Football World Cup, or Grand Slam tennis events. I think so, but others may argue.
I'm not saying that SD is the equal of New York or Paris, but this seems like a gross oversight. Is SD ranked and it is simply not on either the Global Cities Page and the San Diego page? Apologies for the lengthy post. Had to make the arguement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.119.232.106 ( talk) 22:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.119.232.106 ( talk) 21:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
Besides UCSD, are there any other Medical Schools in San Diego city limits? - ChristopherMannMcKay 01:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone (from an IP address at USD) tried to give a "ranking" of the three local law schools, which I deleted. If you can cite a legitimate source, perhaps such rankings may be appropriate, but not just some personal or subjective thought by a student of USD. -- Eric Bekins 21:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
What about some civic infrastructure discussion? Is anyone expert in San Diego government that can address the 2004 change in the city's charter to move to a strong mayor form? How does one find such a person? Geoffwithers 18:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please provide a source for the weather averages, the current source only links to the main page. I found some other soures if they are needed: Weatherbase & MSN,
- ChristopherMannMcKay 01:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)'
Someone added a health section: "San Diego is home to some of the most cutting edge health research in the country. The University of California, San Diego Medical Center [9] is known for it's world class research. Other area health organizations include Core Orthopaedic [10]."
Under major ancestry groups, are the following: Asian American, White American, and African American. I have an issue with this because not all Asians, Whites, or Africans—as reported by the 2000 Census—have ancestors that are American, many are first generation Americans or not Americans at all. For example, my Japanese girlfriend has been in the United States for almost five years to get an education and is living here on a green card, but she is not considered Asian American, because she does not wish to have permanent residence in the U.S. and will move to Japan after grad school, and her ancestors are not considered American, because they were born in Japan. I believe these three ancestry groups should be renamed to exclude 'American' from each of them, does anyone object to this? — Christopher Mann McKay 15:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know how the manual of style relates to citing population for border towns like San Diego? Ronbo76 03:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Not that it destroys the article or is super important, but that picture is ugly. Its a somewhat foggy day, not a good view of the skyline, and showcases a vacant lot and some crumby houses, and a little known statue with a guy standing near it...whoever put that there over the previous image must be retarded.
I am not sure if you are referring to the main picture. If you are, i couldn't agree more with you. There are a lot more spectacular views of San Diego on the web, some with the San Diego-Coronado bridge in the distance, or even aerial shots. If I knew how to edit this with skill, I'd put up a good pic, but until then... I also want to see some pictures of UCSD included, as well as the other San Diegan universities. JAGutierrez ( talk) 07:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
escondido is a san diego county city and should listed as a surrounding city —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blawton777 ( talk • contribs).
I am not seeing major sources for this flight of whites and blacks from the cities. [12] says blacks are leaving, but not as bad as other cities and don't give hard figures. [13] talks about the white flight from schools, but not from the city itself. The only other things I have found were from Wikipedia articles themselves. Anon, what is your side and your sources. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
See List of major UFO sightings. Details there. 65.163.113.170 ( talk) 01:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is there not an article on the San Diego Zoo? Surely there is a Wikipedian out there that could write an article about what has to be considered one of the premier zoological parks in the country. Dick107 ( talk) 21:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have taken the pov out of the political intro. Also, possibly OR when put together. There is no way a Wikipedian or anyone else can tell exactly what the electorate is thinking this minute, much less tomorrow. Fine to connect the dots from 1900 to 2000. And from 2000 the last election. Analysis is usually pov and without a scholarly basis. Top of somebody's head. Example: What was in the NH voters mind exactly one day prior to the recent primary? Lots of brillant post-election "analysis" but all pretty sloppy the day before. Same in SC. Maybe Iowa. Predicting the future from the past has no scholarly basis in fact. Electorates reverse course without any seeming rationale.
Wikpedia does well reporting the past. Let's stick to that and allow the reader/student to do the analysis and OR and come to her/his own conclusions. It's not up to WP to draw those. Student7 ( talk) 01:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a GLARING ERROR in this section. It states that San Diego County voted for John Kerry 55%-45% in the 2004 Election. Then, there is a link to the CA Registrar vote totals for the 2004 Election. The link shows that 52.3% voted for Bush and 47.7% voted for Kerry. I am changing this error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.162.58 ( talk) 22:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
That should read San Diego City voted for John Kerry 55%-45% over George Bush. The link shows the county and city results when you scroll down far enough. Mrsmith93309 ( talk) 04:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It is really weird that there are several great nighttime photos of the S.D. skyline from Coronado in this article but no daylight photos from the same vantage point. Anyway, I just went to San Diego and took some good photos from Coronado at about 2 PM in the afternoon on a clear day. If no one objects, in a few days I will be uploading a couple of those photos and moving around the other photos to make room. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 08:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Should the pronunciation guide for San Diego really be written out as one big word? Right now it's written as "(pronounced /ˌsændiˈeɪgoʊ/)". Should there be a space in there, since the name consists of two words? (I would imagine it should be written like "/ˌsæn diˈeɪgoʊ/".) Funnyhat ( talk) 01:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Please change the pronunciation for San Diego. According to the way it is listed, one would say Sandy-a-go when it is pronounced San Di-e-go; one syllable (first word) followed by three syllables (second word).
24.20.51.172 ( talk) 17:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)AZ 24.20.51.172 ( talk) 17:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The article contains entirely too many "according toos." This is definitely not only unecessary but in some cases may appear to be spam for the source quoted. The emphasis should be on San Diego not on some source which will appear in the footnote. All facts should be sourced. "According tos" should be redundant. Student7 ( talk) 22:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm formatting this incorrectly, I've never edited a discussion page before. I was going to edit it on the article page but obviously, that's been blocked. So this goes out to anyone who can edit this part of the History section:
"In November of 1602, Sebastián Vizcaíno was sent to map the California coast. Arriving on his flagship San Diego, Vizcaíno surveyed the harbor and what are now Mission Bay and Point Loma and named the area for the Catholic Saint Didacus, a Spaniard more commonly known as San Diego."
This is either inaccurate or misleading. San Diego has two bays, Mission Bay and San Diego Bay. San Diego Bay is the large natural harbor created by Point Loma and found by Juan Rodrigues Cabrillo. Mission Bay is the much smaller, partially man-made, recreational bay, as stated in its own Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Bay%2C_San_Diego%2C_California
As well as the City of San Diego website: http://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/parks/missionbay/index.shtml
The wording of the text is potentially confusing, and in fact at first it confused me. I had to re-read it before I determined it wasn't technically incorrect. It says "the harbor and what are now Mission Bay and Point Loma" but at no point does this part of the article clarify that San Diego Bay is the harbor discovered by the Spanish, possibly making it seem to a reader as though Mission Bay and Point Loma are connected and Mission Bay is the harbor.
I would suggest that the text should read more along the lines of either: "In November of 1602, Sebastián Vizcaíno was sent to map the California coast. Arriving on his flagship San Diego, Vizcaíno surveyed the harbor that is now San Diego Bay and named the area for the Catholic Saint Didacus, a Spaniard more commonly known as San Diego."
Or: "In November of 1602, Sebastián Vizcaíno was sent to map the California coast. Arriving on his flagship San Diego, Vizcaíno surveyed the harbor sheltered by what is now Point Loma, now San Diego Bay, and a small bay to the north, now Mission Bay, and named the area for the Catholic Saint Didacus, a Spaniard more commonly known as San Diego."
Would anyone who has the authority to edit the article please consider doing so? Verminjerky ( talk) 12:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The sentence sounds incredibly stupid. "Since 2000 San Diego has voted Democrat in presidential elections." Ok, there has only been one, just one, presidential election since 2000. That is not nearly enough to note a trend. I'm changing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.197.166 ( talk) 08:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The Zoo is unquestionably the single most famous thing about San Diego, shouldn't it at least get a mention in the lead? I mean it seems like there is an entire paragraph about biotech but no mention of the Zoo. Sheep81 ( talk) 08:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
There seems to no longer be a need for protection for this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.100.185 ( talk) 02:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Is Edinburgh not in scotland. Should it not be the scotland and UK flag and scotland United Kigdom Like
There is talk that mayor Jerry Sanders will change the motto of San Diego from "America's Finest City" to "San Diego, the Road to Happiness". Did I hear that right? 72.199.173.76 ( talk) 02:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 05:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
In most area in the US, we continually have someone trying to update census figures based on annual guesstimates by the Census Deparment, in between censuses. This needs to stop. People fight over the actual ten year censuses as being inaccurate. The in between guesstimates are a lot worse! Student7 ( talk) 11:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal on the table to amend the Wikipedia naming conventions for US cities to follow the AP Stylebook's suggested names. This would effectively move a number of US city articles currently on the list, so San Diego, California would be moved to San Diego. To comment on this discussion, please go here. Dr. Cash ( talk) 16:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the new "Fire" section should go somewhere. Not sure that it belongs under ecology at all. We seem to be missing a "Health and Public safety" type section. Have a crime section separate which is okay.
Another place for the fire section is under history. Thoughts? Student7 ( talk) 12:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm really tired of this. Short of permanent semi-protect, is there any way to thwart this one pre-eminent vandalism to this article? Once I was on a site where someone had asked for a footnote. I placed the first one I could find. It was immediately reverted by a 'bot! An admin has set this up, got sick of reverting the same wrong reference by well-meaning (but naive!) editors and had a bot looking at it! (I found one he liked BTW). Anyway, is there any way we can put a bot to screen for this on this article? Thanks. Student7 ( talk) 17:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think you can censor the whale's vagina reference even though it is a cultural reference fact and even though it's the only thing about 98% of the planet know about the place.
I first learned about this reference through WP:FILTER when looking at all of Wikipedia's abuse filters. I'm curious as to how San Diego got associated with whale's vaginas to begin with. What exactly is German for that part of a whale's anatomy? 192.12.88.7 ( talk) 13:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
there's also "Walmuschi", but that comes from a forum, not a reliable source. 192.12.88.7 ( talk) 13:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The politics section (which most articles dont have I think) is interesting and noteworthy I suppose and I dont object to the content, but I think it should be below the Culture section. Politics is part of culture, political culture, and I think it would be better suited under the Cultural section (not apart of the Culture section though). Right now it is below the 'Education' section. Given that there arent any transition sentences from the Education section to the Politics section, it will be a simple, easy, straight forward move of the content. I think the politics section should be lower than the Culture section, given that 1) poltiics is part of culture, 2) it is less important 3) most articles dont have such a section. Im going to move it, if anyone objects- we can have a discussion here. 134.121.247.116 ( talk) 06:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The footnotes section needs to include descriptions of the citation. I think the San Diego article (and the Los Angeles one too for that matter) is being held back because of the lack of a description on the citations, might be why this article isnt doing so well on the quality scale.
If you look at the San Francisco and Seattle articles, they
I guess we shouldnt mind about the number of footnotes, we should just care about the quality of the footnotes, they have more footnotes simply because they are bigger (Seattle article is 117,838 bytes and San Francisco article is 119,740 bytes).But, we should go back and change the bot generated footnotes if we can. It would really make it look nicer if you could click a reference and it highlights a link (obviously for online references) and know exactly what it is before you even click it...like these:
< ref name="06EST"> "Population Estimates for the 25 Largest U.S. Cities based on July 1, 2006 Population Estimates" (PDF). US Census Bureau. Retrieved 2007-06-28.< /ref>
< ref>
"Crime in the San Diego Region Mid-Year 2006 Statistics" (PDF).
http://www.sandag.org/ San Diego's Regional Planning Agency].
2006-02-16. Retrieved 2007-01-28. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); External link in
(
help)< /ref>
|publisher=
< ref>
"San Diego CA Crime Statistics (2005 Crime Data)".
www.AreaConnect.com. Retrieved 2007-04-02. {{
cite web}}
: External link in
(
help)< /ref>
|publisher=
134.121.247.116 ( talk) 09:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Update: I have Wikified all the links in the References section using the citation templates. I found a few links that suffered from link rot(dead links) that I labeled. In the future we should try to re-reference those citations, etc. We should try to use the citation templates, most of the Good Articles i've seen use the Wikipedia citation templates. It makes everything consistent, more scholarly, and nice looking if anything else. If we get lazy and stop using them, then the work will pile up so much that nobody will want to fix it -and the reference section will just decend into chaos. Thanks, Anon134 ( talk) 23:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Too many pictures? Not only that, some are placed in sections/contexts that arent relevant to the topic. I know San Diego is the most beautiful place in the world, but we shouldnt go overboard with pictures like the Los Angeles article did.
Examples of what im talking about:
In the History section:
In the Demographics section:
In the Economy section:
No disprespect to the photographer but the following arent very appealing to the eye:
In the Transportation section:
This one again. Not only is it sorta useless, its jusy a plain bad picture. It has white specs on it, the focal point is in the background, the guy in the there makes me depresssed-hes slouching like a humpback... The Star of India is supposed to look nice.
We already have two very nice photographs in this section, I dont see why this slightly blurred one of an absolutely unremarkable exit is on here.
Point:
In sum, I think the photos should be 1) relevant to the section they are in and 2) halfway decent and generally nice to look at (if its supposed to be). I would elect to take them out or at least replace them with better pictures.
Idea:
A picture like this one would look awesome. For some reason I thought we had a photo of a a freeway where cars were entering and exiting San Diego with the skyline in the background. I wonder where that went sometimes...maybe it could be redone by someone with a nice camera? Just some thoughts and ideas. Anon134 ( talk) 06:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
There are only a couple which I think should be removed. The others probably should be relocated or something-they are sorta cluttering up the article. Ill try to do what I can to unclutter it. If anyone has any concerns about the relocation or deletion of any of the photos, start a conversation here so we all can discuss it.
Oh, and about the picture with the freeway and the skyline and such-I figured out its still in the article in Transportation (the nice I-5 photo), lol-I just missed it somehow. Thanks! Anon134 ( talk) 09:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Student7 and I have been floating ideas on what to do with the Neighborhoods section. Right now it is basically a more eye-appealing list that has almost no content. If we are satisfied keeping it a simple list, I would recommend just providing a 'main article' redirect to the List of neighborhoods of San Diego, California. Or we could maybe do what the LA article did and list the sections of the city and elaborate on the most notable neighborhoods within each section, sort of like the LA article does below:
From the LA article:
"...The city is divided into many neighborhoods, many of which were towns that were annexed by the growing city. There are also several independent cities in and around Los Angeles, but they are popularly grouped with the city of Los Angeles, either due to being completely engulfed as enclaves by Los Angeles, or lying within its immediate vicinity. Generally, the city is divided into the following areas: Downtown Los Angeles, Northeast - including Highland Park and Eagle Rock areas, the Eastside, South Los Angeles (still often colloquially referred to as South Central by locals), the Harbor Area, Hollywood, Wilshire, the Westside and the San Fernando and Crescenta Valleys.
Some well-known communities of Los Angeles include West Adams, Watts, Leimert Park, Baldwin Hills, Venice Beach, the Downtown Financial District, Los Feliz, Silver Lake, Hollywood, Koreatown, Westwood and the more affluent areas of Bel Air, Benedict Canyon, Hollywood Hills, Hancock Park, Pacific Palisades, and Brentwood..."
The LA article also has a neighborhood list, List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles, which is more of an article than an actual "list". Maybe the San Diego article could have something along the lines of this. I dont know. To me, anything would be better than a simple, space consuming list of neighborhoods. Anon134 ( talk) 04:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
As I recall, any group in California can call itself a college unless this has changed. This leads the "Fashion Design" folks to make a legitimate entry under colleges. I wonder if this will get out of control with Auto Mechanic College, Barber college, etc? We might think about what can be done with the section - like forking it or limiting it to institutions with some kind of academic accreditation, assuming that is allowed under Wikipedia policy. Having said that, California is (or was) unique in that regard and the admins might cut us a bit of slack if as long as we didn't get overly precise. Student7 ( talk) 22:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I just want to note that the Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising does have academic accreditation, as stated on its site as well as on the sites of the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities and the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, 2 of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges' (WASC) 3 commissions. Of course, I agree that non-accredited institutions (such as barber college) need not be added to the list of colleges. Raskovnik ( talk) 10:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
According to WP:CITIES, US Census figures should be used. While others are allowed, they must be shown to be reliable. See WP:RELY. Why does SANDAG exist except to promote aid to the area or to justify spending money on something? They are clearly a WP:POV organization, which is just fine, except an encyclopedia should not be using their figures in lieu of unbiased ones. Student7 ( talk) 02:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I feel the two short paragraphs dedicated to the military specifically (one of which is pretty much a list of installations) and the few other short sentences scattered over the article about the military dont exactly communicate the significance of the institutions (esp. the Navy) in San Diego. There should be definitely something mentioned about the Navy in the Lead, because of its role for for the US Pacific fleet. San Diego has been a Navy town for decades and nobody could imagine what San Diego would be like without the Navy! I think we should do something about that. I wish I could help with such a task... :(
PS: This Talk page is getting really long. Archive?
Anon134 ( talk) 08:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I love the new montag, its nicely done. However, I noticed when comparing it to the other montages, such as the Los Angeles, Detroit, and New York City montages that the San Diego one is significantly bigger (length and width wise). If you switch back and forth from the LA to SD montages, you can really see the difference (using the top of the page at load as a bearing)-in the LA infobox you can see stuff beyond the montage, while the SD one takes up the whole page. If you look at all the other montages, it seems that they are standardized, and are of similar size. I dont know if this is a Wikipedia policy or something, but I think it would be better if this one followed suit. Anon134 ( talk) 19:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is the Hotel Del Coronado included in the montage? The Del is located in the city of Coronado, not the city of San Diego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.172.52 ( talk) 08:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
In the level 2 header, Education, I created a new level 3 header, San Diego authors. I'd like some people to put some authors besides Robert Titzer into the section. Veraladeramanera ( talk) 21:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The precipitation data for San Diego is completely off. It does not receive 92 inches of rainfall annually, that would make it one of the wettest cities in the US, which it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.111.228 ( talk) 05:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that 92 inches of rain anually would be a lot, but i don't see that written anywhere... it says 10.
Benklop (
talk) 06:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
in the side bar where statistics about the city are, at the top of the article, it mentions the population if you include tiajuana, and says the stats are from 2008. Unfortunately there is a comma in the middle of 2008 which chould not be there. I didn't see it in the wiki code, so I have no idea why it is there... can something be done about this?
Benklop ( talk) 06:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Whoever transcribed the temperature data from the Weather Channel page screwed it all up. I noticed this when I read that, according to the Wikipedia article, that September is the hottest month. I've lived here for almost my entire life, and it's August. So then I examined the other average high temperatures, and they are ALL pretty much wrong, not at all matching the source -- or other sources like citydata.com, for example. The other temperatres appear to be more accurate, but I did not check every one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.146.141 ( talk) 01:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)