Talk:San Diego/Archive 1

City Council

Not 100% sure, but I edited the city council on Infobox to say what political parties the councilors belong to. I believe there maybe one or two possibly wrong. If anyone knows please take a look.

City offices are non-partisan. Their political party is no mor relevant than their religion or ethnicity. -Will Beback 01:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Much of the introduction section is slightly peculiar and bordering on POV. This sentence is just plain bizarre:

The military presence in San Diego has always given the city a wholesome and somewhat conservative feeling, although Democrats now outnumber Republicans in the neighborhoods surrounding downtown.

Some of the possible implications of this sentence include: (1) that the military is wholesome; (2) that being wholesome and conservative go together; and (3) that Republicans are wholesome but Democrats are not. It's just really strange. kdogg36 20:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>>>I agree with you -- if you're hyper-sensitive about such things. The military is a conservative institution. Democrats are not considered conservative. (AT)

The entire introduction needs to be scrapped. It's poorly written, contains numerous gramatical errors, and is extremely slanted (I wouldn't say it's bordering on POV; it's extremely POV). Not being from San Diego, the Introduction tells me nothing useful. It's a blight on Wikipedia.

I agree. I made some previous attempts, but they got reverted. Would be happy to see another attempt. Chart123 14:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>>>It would help if you gave examples of the poor writing and grammatical errors ("grammar" having two m's, not one.) The dry compendium of facts that is now posted in the Introduction to "San Diego" tells me nothing interesting about the city. It doesn't surprise me that one of the critics here isn't from San Diego. Have you even visited this city? And who spelled Lindbergh Field "Lindburgh Field"? Anyway, I've changed the introduction to make it more interesting. I would also like to delete or shorten the sections on San Diego in popular culture and famous San Diegans. But I'll leave that for others to decide. And no, I don't think every little thing needs to be substantiated with a source. (AT) (April 22, 2006)

- - I don't need to be from San Diego to recognize poor writing. No, I have never been to the city - I visited the Sad Diego page to learn about the city (isn't that why this site is here in the first place, to learn about things?). I did not do so to learn about your opinions or point of view, and yes, if you claim something to be a fact, you ought to cite the source.

This is an encyclopedia, and a page on a city should be much closer to a "dry compendium of facts" than it is now -- your additions to the introduction make me think that you're trying to sell the city.

Read Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, if you haven't already.

I would like other users' take on this before I revert to a drier version. I'm gung-ho about San Diego (I was born and raised in Normal Heights, went to Saints, and lived there for close to 20 years. I go back and visit often, and my daughter especially loves the Zoo and Sea World.), and I always like to hear people talk it up. But an encylopedia entry should not read like a tourism guide. Chart123 13:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>>>I see accusations here without any substantiation. Just what do I say that "sells" the city like a tourism guide? I'll take a look at the intro again, but selling the city was not my intent. I do, however, think that the distinctive character of the city should be revealed to readers, the sooner the better. If natural beauty and a pleasant climate are in fact part of that character, then there is nothing wrong with pointing that out. If people come here to go to the zoo, Sea World, etc., there is nothing wrong with pointing that out either. And doing so at the beginning, in the introduction, instead of making the reader wait for a long list of "attractions" at the end of the article.

The neutral point of view policy talks about political bias, ideology, differences of opinion related to facts, etc. I don't see anything in the policy that says, "Your writing must be dull and uninteresting -- this is just a dry dusty encyclopedia." (AT) (April 22, 2006)

Okay, I've reread the intro, and I see NOTHING that sells the city. I describe the layout -- the bay here, the mountains there, La Jolla there -- and I speak of various activities (boating, surfing, and so on) and, at worst, declare that Mount Soledad has a commanding view of its surroundings.

Well, does it not, in fact, have such a view? Are there not, in fact, deserts, mountains, forests, valleys, mesas and canyons in San Diego County? And so on and so forth?

I have never encountered so much neurotic handwringing in Wikipedia as I have about this article on San Diego.

I don't have to espouse a neutral point of view here in the discussion section, so I'll call a spade a spade. In addition to being crazed freeway drivers (but nice otherwise), it seems that San Diegans are persnickety about anything in print that doesn't conform to whatever little agenda might be percolating in their brains. And instead of getting down to the nitty-gritty and pointing out what's really wrong, the unsubstantiated accusation combined with threats to censor the offending material is the order of the day. Whatever. Some of you need to get a life. (AT) (April 22, 2006)

I made some minor edits. I think it helps get rid of what I think is the biased language in the intro. AT, I wasn't making a personal attack. You're right to ask about what exactly my complaints were, but the attempt here is to make page better, not to debate you about your writing style. Sorry if I seemed abrasive, but my point was not to attack you -- it was to examine the intro.

I think my minor edits help. I would still like a much shorter intro, since much of the info there is repeated later in the article Chart123 16:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits seem okay. I don't know what biased language you were getting rid of exactly. I think this is more of a disagreement about style and approaches to writing in general. But your changes are fine. Not exactly what I would do, but this is a collaborative encyclopedia so that's okay.

The reason I am opposed to a shorter introduction is because I think it is important that readers get a quick but still comprehensive preview of what is to come -- that is what "introduction" means as far as I'm concerned.

Those who don't want to read beyond the introduction will at least have gotten some idea of what San Diego is like, while others who are more interested can read in greater detail about topics touched on in the introduction. [AT] April 22, 2006

That's fine. Let's see what other folks think. Chart123 17:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like the new introduction. Can we merge the intro and the overview? They seem to cover the same ground. -Will Beback 21:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. [AT] April 24, 2006

I've taken the liberty of merging the introduction, overview and urban planning sections. I hope the revised introduction gives a good overview without being an advertisment. I also trust that there is no redundancy - repeating of info in the introduction later on in the article. There is still a need for giving appropriate sources. Some of the things I talk about I know because I live in San Diego and read the local paper daily from cover to cover. But that isn't good enough, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. On the other hand, just what needs to be proven with a source? I hope not the claim that Ocean Beach is on the west side of Pt. Loma! In other words, we need someone who can identify the exact things that need to be verified with a source.

I think the article is still too long. But I don't have the heart to eliminate/shorten "San Diego in the media", "famous San Diegans", the list of different San Diego foods (tacos -- who would have thought?), etc. But somebody should shorten these sections and get to the essence of what makes San Diego unique. [AT] April 24, 2006

The article really isn't so long, compared to other similar cities. I did just cut a bit more: the list of high schools is unecessary,m sonce we have an article just for that. And the "private motoring" only confirmed that the city has roads and freeways. The list of notable residents could be split off into a separate article. -Will Beback 20:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Intro is 1000 times better than it used to be. Does anyone know why there is still a banner saying the article reads like an advertisement? It used to, but I don't think it does anymore. --Westmt01 16:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the introduction no longer reads like an advertisement, but the economy section could probably use some rewriting. It appears to use some claims without sources and speaks about the great success of San Diego's economy. If that part was fixed, I bet we could remove the banner. --Nehrams2020 17:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Demographics changing to Demographics (2000 census)

Many Wikipedia pages seem to have been auto-extracted from an online census resource. It seems like all of this demographics section is so extracted. Since much of the content is a snapshot in time of moving figures (example: median incomes), the fact that it is the 2000 census for the whole section ought to be annotated in the header. But I've seen dozens and there must be jillions of similarly-formatted pages. I wonder if whoever did the extraction has a way of auto-changing all these headers9 if they agree with the edit idea)? --- Williamv1138, May 11, 2003

High Tech High

The text is copied exactly from High Tech High to preserve GFDL traceability. Will clean up shortly. The text is that as of 17:25, 1 Nov 2004 Bboarder12 Bboarder12, with the exception of the insertion and removal of various Wikipedia administrative notices by others. The history is: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:14, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 17:25, 1 Nov 2004 Bboarder12
(cur) (last) 17:20, 1 Nov 2004 Bboarder12
(cur) (last) 17:05, 1 Nov 2004 Bboarder12
(cur) (last) 17:04, 1 Nov 2004 CBDroege m (reason)
(cur) (last) 17:04, 1 Nov 2004 CBDroege m (original author of page is not allowed to remove speedy deletion candidacy.)
(cur) (last) 17:02, 1 Nov 2004 RickK (vfd)
(cur) (last) 17:00, 1 Nov 2004 Bboarder12
(cur) (last) 16:56, 1 Nov 2004 Bboarder12
(cur) (last) 16:52, 1 Nov 2004 CBDroege m (candidate for speedy delete)
(cur) (last) 16:49, 1 Nov 2004 Bboarder12
(cur) (last) 16:47, 1 Nov 2004 Bboarder12

Since the High Tech High article has been kept, shouldn't the stub of it on this page be shortened to a passing reference? Right now it is out of proportion with the rest of the article, getting more space than even the universities.

What of the strong Mormon presence in SD? They arrived here after fighting 'some' war... (need to do more research on this) but there are a lot of Mormons in San Diego and a huge Multi Million $ Temple to remind everyone off the Five that SD has a rich and powerful Mormon pop.

There needs to be an article or (addition to this article) on the widespread corruption in the city government. I'll start working on a summary. -Fernando Rizo 05:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

High schools

A very short, stubby, POV article was recently created on St. Augustine High School. I strongly believe that whenever article length permits, short basic descriptions of schools belong in context within the town of which they are a part. Redirect entries to let people interested in the school find the information are fine. f the school information is ever expanded to the point where the town article exceeds 32K and the school article is clearly an article in itself, it can be broken out then.

Also, I have unlinked names of schools without articles because redlinks tend to encourage the creation of small, substub, stand-alone articles.

If the information on the school was removed because the judgement of people who know St. Augustine is that it is of no particular importance in the San Diego community, please discuss here. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That works for me. This school does have a few interesting facts about it and I'm glad that it has at least some mention in this encyclopedia. Er, we might want to change the section heading in this article (my own lame compromise). Anyone care to review and edi? Thanks as always, everybody, for contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 11:29, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Also, none of the schools seem to be linked now. The ones that do have good non-stub existing articles should be linked... no time to check this now, though... Dpbsmith (talk) 11:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

how come no one is allowed in the temple - -User 4:07, Mar 29, 2005

well how come some schools can be edited and others can't

the film "Bring it On' filmed at Academy of Our Lady of Peace so some one just write that

the PSA Crash of sep 1978 was two streets away from the St. Augustine high school and some upperclassmen students went to go help but were pushed back by authorities for their safety but the gym was used as a makeshift morgue.

and the former mayor, a city council man indicted on embezzeling money, and a guy on the young and the restless an american soap opera went there

some one keeps putting that scott peterson attended uni and thats true and who deletes i mean the bishops school had andrew cunnan a reckless homosexual in denial spree killer noted but why doesn't the article keep peterson

Scott Peterson hasn't been removed from the Uni article. But there was no need for a photo plus an entire paragraph recounting his crime, which had nothing to do with his high school. He's incorporated in the list of famous alumni. Thanks for your contributions. -Willmcw 19:48, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

but i didnt put that there. and who puts saint augustine on the main page it should have its own page or else there would be one for each school listed...

Having a short description of the notable points of schools might be a fine way of covering the educational opportunities. While most schools are not different enough to require an entire article many have a sentence or two worth of interesting information. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:41, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

--But is that not bragging for a school on the main. There should be a whole seperate page called:

notable high schools of san diego and there be a little or just a mention of the school.

i just don't think one school should be reported and not another. i attend one of the schools listed but i don't want my school to be shown on top ... --68.107.105.** Image:Westpac.gif07:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi 68.107, are you User:SNIyer1 by any chance? Whether yes or no, I'd appreciate it if you could let me know on my talk page at User talk:SlimVirgin, and I'll explain further. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:13, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

if we are denoting which high schools are notable simply by the alumni of the school, then I think it should be denoted as such. My school in San Diego, Patrick Henry H.S., has had Ricky Williams, Annette Bening, RuPaul, Eric Karros, and a whole lot more... --- Tostie14

RuPaul attended Lincoln High School not Patrick Henry

Having famous alumni is an element of making a school notable. But among those who care, it takes more than that. A short list of famous alumni can easily be added to a school's entry in a listing of area schools, for example. Other elements which begin to make it worthwhile to have a separate article about a school are an interesting history, articles or books written about the school, and so on. There is a serious debate within Wikipedia about the relative notability of all high schools, so none of this is settled. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:54, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

couldn't we make a separate page

ABOUT famous HIGH SCHOOLS IN SAN DIEGO....and what their claim to fame is, then it would be off the main page, because i find it annoying to to see one school be talked about and another not, and there constantly being changed

That might work. "Famous" would not be a good criteria. Probably List of schools in San Diego, California would be an appropriate title. Also, one of the norms on Wikipedia is to sign your talk page comments, which can be done by typing four tildes (~). Cheers, -Willmcw 21:56, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I m working on a page of schools, but the whole wikipedia thing is new to me but I have updated the page of san diego airport. --Randomgbear 21:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Requested move: Saint Augustine High School

A confused request to move a page was made on WP:RM March 29, 2005, this seems the bast place to discuss it:

Saint Augustine High School should be moved to a seperate page, it's own St. Augustine High School. (Cannot be automatically done because a redirect now exists at this page.) Other schools have there own and there was one for itself for awhile. Also it is on the page for the city of san diego. thats is public and could cause controversy --Randomgbear 16:45, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

If you follow this link you can edit the redirect and start the article. violet/riga (t) 20:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But it would be better to discuss it here, first. I feel strongly that high schools belong in the context of the community to which they belong and should not be broken out into separate articles except in the cases of unusually notable high schools. Why is it more useful to a reader to see a paragraph about a school by itself rather than together with descriptions of other schools and the surrounding community? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am surprised no one has corrected the automatic redirect of certain high schools into the San Diego page. OLP and Saints do not have their own page, based on Dpbsmith's belief that "high schools belong in the context of the community to which they belong." I might agree with Dpbsmith in the abstract, but not on Wikipedia, where subjects that can be discussed in "isolation" should be discussed in their separate pages. I don't see a problem with high schools (or colleges, elementary schools, churches, malls, etc.) having their own pages -- just as I don't see a problem breaking cities apart from states, or states apart from countries, or wars apart from leaders and generals, etc. When we create separate pages, we are not disavowing an integral link, but are treating subjects separately that can be treated separately, like any encylopedia might. You can't really understand "hydrogen" outside of the context of chemistry and physics, but that doesn't mean you can't have a separate entry for hydrogen. We can accomodate the views of Dpbsmith by providing enough links to the city page.

There is plenty of information about both schools. They should have their own pages and be linked to San Diego. I will remove the redirect once the page content is created, but would be happy to discuss the alternative.

Chart123 talk 15:16, 4 Apr. 2006

"Neighborhood" section

In the Southeastern section, a few minor changes made. First, Broadway Heights, a community located in in the northeastern section of Southeastern was added. I grew up there, so I should know. Also, I changed "Emerald City" to "Emerald Hills." On the sandiego.gov website, it is listed as "Emerald City," which is an error. The area is called "Emerald Hills." --Reg619 01:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the "localities" listed in this section are in San Diego County, but not part of the city of San Diego. Although it looks like someone took a long time to list all the cities and towns and helpfully put each under a separate geographical heading, many of the entries (Santee, Escondido, Julian, etc.) should be deleted. Unless, of course, someone gives a good reason to keep. 69.231.199.116 02:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is true, and I've been meaning to go in and fix them. I keep hoping someone else will. (hint) San Diego County, California should have the complete list. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:02, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

OK, you talked me into it...but later. ;) 204.128.192.8 18:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've totally revamped the "localities" section (now calling it "neighborhoods"). I found a list of SD neighborhoods on the official SD website (http://www.sandiego.gov/neighborhoods-map/) which is, incidentally, probably where the original list came from. I've left links for those neighborhoods already with wikipedia articles and removed those that conflict with existing articles of other localities.

The list is quite long and, frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing the whole thing disappear, though it is rather comprehensive. 69.231.199.116 03:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It looks good, I think. Good job. --Kenyon 05:24, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't "Barrio Logan" just the Spanish-language name for the neighborhood of Logan Heights? I'm not from SD, so I'm not sure, but that was the impression I got from all my research. I suggest removing "Barrio Logan" from the list of neighborhoods, with an elaboration in the "Logan Heights" article on the alternate naming of the 'hood.--Rockero 22:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has been taken care of.--Rockero 21:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhoods

File:SanDiego2.jpg

San Diego waterfront

Northern, Bay Ho, Bay Park, Carmel Valley, Clairemont Mesa, Del Mar Heights, La Jolla, La Jolla Village, Mission Beach, North City, North Clairemont, Pacific Beach, Torrey Pines, University City

Northeastern, Carmel Mountain, Miramar, Mira Mesa, Rancho Bernardo, Rancho Peñasquitos, Sabre Springs, Scripps Ranch, Sorrento Valley

Eastern, Allied Gardens, Birdland, Del Cerro, Grantville, Kearny Mesa, Lake Murray, Mission Valley East, San Carlos, Serra Mesa, Tierrasanta

Western, Hillcrest, La Playa, Linda Vista, Loma Portal, Midtown, Midway District, Mission Hills, Mission Valley West, Morena, North Park, Ocean Beach, Old Town, Point Loma Heights, Roseville-Fleetridge, Sunset Cliffs, University Heights, Wooded Area

Central, Balboa Park, Barrio Logan, Core-Columbia, Cortez, Gaslamp Quarter, Golden Hill, Grant Hill, Harborview, Horton Plaza, Little Italy, Logan Heights, Marina, Memorial, Park West, Sherman Heights, South Park, Stockton

Mid-City, City Heights, College Area, Darnall, El Cerrito, Gateway, Kensington, Normal Heights, Oak Park, Rolando, Talmadge, Webster

Southeastern, Alta Vista, Bay Terrace, Chollas View, Emerald City, Encanto, Jamacha-Lomita, Lincoln Park, Mountain View, Mt. Hope, Paradise Hills, Shelltown, Skyline, Southcrest, Valencia

Southern, Egger Highlands, Nestor, Ocean Crest, Otay Mesa, Otay Mesa West, Palm City, San Ysidro, Tijuana River Valley

How does this look? Less white space. (I notice that neither picture is captioned with the name of a neighborhood.) Also, all the independent city articles should be titled City, California and all the San Diego City neighborhoods or districts should be titled like Neighborhood, San Diego, California. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:43, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think it looks great!! I agree about the titles of the linked neighborhoods, but some of existing articles were setup in the wrong format, so that's what I linked to. 69.231.199.116

I'll go ahead and reformat. I'd suggest that we drop the redlinks for areas that don't have articles yet. That much red is distracting. Thanks for organizing this information. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:16, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Church guide

A recently added link to a website seems to be on the borderline of acceptable. "San Diego Church Review & Guide" [1] is "made up of several individuals who believe it is extremely important for non-christians, new believers and mature believers to find a church that is centered on the Bible." It rates churches on how closely they conform to this group's view of Christianity. It is a frankly biased approach and seems out of place in a list of uncontroversial links. If we keep it I think that we should describe it in some manner. Do other editors have opinions? -Willmcw 03:23, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is a valuable resource for people. -DG 03:23, Oct 08, 2005 (Linda Vista) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2005 71.137.86.113 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 October

I've looked at the website, and even for an article on Religion in San Diego County the website would be inappropriate since it almost completely Protestant churches, and is very biased towards a certain viewpoint of Christianity--even rating the churches on a 0-5 rating scale for various categories. Hopefully there is a much better website for religion in San Diego since there is some very interesting history (the Theosophical Society in Pt. Loma for example), as well as interesting recent developments. For the San Diego and San Diego County articles I don't think any religion guide is appropriate. BlankVerse ∅ 10:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page name

The current redirect/disambig setup isn't optimal no matter what the article concerning the city is called. It should be one of the following:

San Diego = city
San Diego (disambiguation) = disambiguation

Or this:

San Diego = disambiguation
San Diego, California = city

I believe that San Diego should be the article about the city, since it's the most common use of the name, and because many articles link to it as such. --Yath 00:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yath, you are absolutely correct. --Serge 07:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever possible, all city articles are titled "cityname, statename". That includes some cities where there is no chance of confusion, like Chicago, Illinois. The other "San Diegos" are less likely to be searched on (except perhaps San Diego County) so it is appropriate for the San Diego link to go straight to the city, with only a mention of the disambiguation at the top. I don't think there is any problem. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:56, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

"Wherever possible, all city articles are titled 'cityname, statename'"? Yes, we know, but the $10,000 question is why? Especially considering doing so violates the Wiki convention of using the common "whenever possible", i.e., when it does cause a significant ambiguous problem. Hence San Diego should be the main name for this page, and San Diego, California should be redirect to it. See more below at the Naming convention? Vote! section. --Serge 07:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine Section

Who exactly decided that Rubio's fish tacos were the official food of San Diego? That never made it across my desk ;). Seriously though, unless someone has a reference to corroborate that statement, I'm going to remove it. Fernando Rizo 23:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's not mentioned on the Rubios website, where I'd expect it to appear. [2] -Willmcw 00:06, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I think it might be worthwhile, on the other hand, to post something relating to the prevalence of San Diego "taco shops". Although you see them throughout Southern California and the States on the southern border, I've never visited another place where they were both a) as abundant, and b) as commonplace in the local lore.

Although Rubio's may have started in San Diego, I think most native San Diegans (of which I am one :) ) tend to see it as more or less "just another mexican restaurant, albiet quicker than La Salsa/Baja Fresh/etc..." regardless of how the rest of the country might connect it to SD. On the other hand, with a decent "taco shop" located within a half-mile no matter where in the city you are, I think these have more influence on the local culture of cuisine.

See http://www.localwally.com/food.html or http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Jul/01/en/en09a.html for a couple of references to this, though I doubt most natives would need any.

Another point on the distribution of them might be to hilight how they aren't isolated or concentrated in ethnic conclaves (not that much in San Diego really is) which does occur in other parts of So.Cal; you're just as likly to find as many Roberto's, Alberto's, etc... (or "*berto's", as some in the local tech industry refer to them) in the more upscale La Jolla as you are in Encanto, Mission Hills, PB, or Del Cerro. -Jccleaver 20:21, February 25, 2006 (UTC)

--

Would it make sense to spin off a new article on restaurants in San Diego?

Toni Atkins listed as mayor

As of now, Toni Atkins is listed as deputy mayor on the City of San Diego website [3]. Since this is specifically not a "mayor pro tem" position by its nature, shouldn't the mayor section not say "Toni Atkins (interim)" but "vacant", just like District Two and District Eight council seats? I'd like to change it without objection. --Derek 15:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Location of the Wild Animal Park, once and for all

It's become fashionable of late to add the Wild Animal Park to the list of San Diego attractions in this article; this is absolutely incorrect. The WAP is in Escondido, CA, a fact that I shall prove forthwith. It is reasonable to compromise and leave the WAP in the attractions list and simply denote its more specific location in Escondido.

Now, User:64.186.246.90 reverted my last edit with the comment, "Wild Animal Park is in the City of San Diego NOT Escondido look at it on a map!", so we're going to do exactly that.

If you click on this link to the official website of the Wild Animal Park, you shall see that it not only includes a map showing that the Park is in Escondido, but it lists the address of the park as "15500 San Pasqual Valley Road, Escondido, California 92027-7017". If we plug that address into Google Maps, you can see that the park is in fact in the City of Escondido, which is located a little over 30 miles away from downtown San Diego.

I do hope that this clears up any confusion about the whereabouts of the Wild Animal Park. I'm going to return to the previous compromise edit, listing the WAP in the attractions list while adding the qualifier: "in nearby Escondido, CA". Fernando Rizo T/C 21:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; SDWAP is well within the city limits on a reputable map of the city [4], and the well-produced graphic of the city here on Wikipedia, Image:SD_in_SD_County_map.png, both of which are more reliable than a website directed towards tourists or a mailing address, which, as anyone at UCSD will tell you, has nothing to do with the city in which the location actually is. I submit that "(in nearby Escondido, CA)" is incorrect. --Derek 17:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a map produced by the city, which I found a bit clearer. This little bit of info, however, has got me thoroughly confused: The city of San Diego owned 1,090 acres of this site while a 160 acres of it was San Diego County Property. Therefore, San Pasqual Valley was included as part of the San Diego County. Why would the county, with a minority of the land, get to annex the whole area? -- Norvy (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this is perhaps similar to the case of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. It is physically located in one city, but its main gate and mailing address are in another. -Willmcw 21:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll to establish consensus re: Wild Animal Park location

All right, ladies & gents. I propose that we stop editing the WAP entry in the article until we've hashed out a consensus, as this appears to be much more contentious than I originally thought it would be. Derek and Norvy both made some good points above, so let's vote and see if we can't figure out what the group wants to do.

A vote for Support indicates that the reference to the Wild Animal park should stay as it is right now (*San Diego Wild Animal Park)

A vote for Oppose indicates that the reference to the Wild Animal Park should read "in nearby Escondido, CA".

Other votes are welcomed with explanatory notes. Let's vote for five days and on 28 August I'll change the article to read however the consensus goes. If there's no consensus, we'll try at that time to hash out a compromise.

Oppose. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC) Changed vote, see below. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't vote yet. Let's research the issue some more. Has anyone tried contacting the WAP? But I agree, let's not edit the main article until this is hashed out here. -- Norvy (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. SanGIS maps [5] (PDF neighborhood map of city [6], PDF maps of San Pasqual neighborhood [7]) in conjunction with visual landmark sighting using Google Maps [8] clearly show the entrance and majority of the park (if not entirety) are within the city limits of San Diego. It should also be noted that if a minority of land is outside the city's jurisdiction, it is in unincorporated territory in the county, not in Escondido. --Derek 20:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I contacted The San Diego Wild Animal Park and they confirmed that is within the City of San Diego's city limits. I also requested an e-mail answering this and hope to receive the e-mail and I will post it as soon as I get it. I also contacted the local City Council Office and they reconfirmed it.

Forwarded message ----------

From: PublicRelations <PublicRelations@sandiegozoo.org> Date: Aug 29, 2005 11:14 AM Subject: Re: SD Wild Animal Park To:--

Thank you for your interest in the San Diego Wild Animal Park. Although technically located within the City of San Diego - the Wild Animal Park is located an hour's drive north of downtown San Diego. <unsigned comment by User:64.186.246.90>

I'll happily change my vote if we can get something like that. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can also confirm this. After the city built Sutherland Dam, farmers sued the city because they feared it would damage the water table. The farmers won, and the city was ordered to buy the land. They turned it into San Pasqual Agricultural Preserve. Part of this land is where the WAP stands today. And I've got a cite: (Myers, Douglas Mister Zoo: The Life and Legacy of Dr. Charles Schroeder: The World-Famous San Diego Zoo and Wild Animal Park's Legendary Director. The Zoological Society of San Diego. 1999. ISBN 0-911461-15-9. pp. 180-180, 186.) -- Norvy (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose The address of the park is, "15500 San Pasqual Valley Road, Escondido, California 92027-7017", placing it inside San Diego County, but outside San Diego City. Nonetheless, in either case we should make it clear that it is over 30 miles from downtown San Diego and near (if not in) Escondido. I don't deny that the attraction is called the "San Diego Wild Animal Park". I also don't deny that some of the land on which it sits was annexed to San Diego City a few decades ago. Stewart Adcock 08:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Norvy's reference tipped the scale for me; I'm man enough to know when I'm wrong, and this looks like one of the times. The city layout is pretty serpentine to the North and East, and the land purchase by the city that Norvy refers to makes sense enough for me. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Willmcw's idea. God I'm changing my mind so much its like asking a girl where she wants to go to dinner. Willmcw's idea is superb. I don't know why we didn't think of that before. And yes, your write-in vote is allowed, as long as you properly fill in the bubble next to it. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Write-in vote (are they allowed?). The Caltech Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), in La Cañada Flintridge, near Pasadena, California, USA, builds and operates...Almost all of the ... JPL campus is actually located in the city of La Canada Flintridge, California, but the JPL main gate and several buildings are in Pasadena, so it maintains a Pasadena address... Thus: "San Diego Wild Animal Park, near Escondido". That formula more precisely indicates where the park is, and helps covers the usual association of the park with Escondido. -Willmcw 09:23, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

- This would work for me. Stewart Adcock 10:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as above. -- Norvy (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Concurring. We don't need to be extremist in these locational matters; "near Escondido" is a good way to designate this popular attraction's distance from the city center without misdesignating its bounds. --Derek 16:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Support Willmcw's idea. Possibly with the addition of the distance from downtown San Diego since it is so far away. BlankVerse ∅ 11:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The idea above by User:Willmcw is the best idea so far. --Mechcozmo 16:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wild Animal Park is in San Diego County. I suppose this suffices for a designation as an attraction in San Diego City. Personally, since I have always lived near it in the Rancho Bernardo / Carmel Mountain Ranch area, which is also in San Diego County I have considered it in San Diego no matter what.

That's incorrect. The San Diego City limits follow strange serpentine like boundaries, and the WAP falls within them. --Serge 00:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was late to this discussion. The consensus appears to have been for "support", but the article said "in Escondido." The actual fact is that the SDWAP is located in the community of San Pasqual Valley, and is entirely within the City of San Diego (Escondido mailing address notwithstanding). I added a stub for the neighborhood, and changed this article and the SDWAP article to use the correct location. The stub notes that the neighborhood borders the City of Escondido. I hope that clarifies things. Verbivorous 23:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why specify anything? None of the other attractions specify what part of the city they are in. Why treat the SDWAP differently? --Serge 00:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Willmcw write-in San Pasqual Valley is an unincorporated community. Notice that San Pasqual Valley does not show up on Google maps. Furthermore, most San Diegans have never heard of that community, so it's not useful to say the park is located there. The correspondence above from the WAP indicate that it is indeed within the city boundaries (the city bought the land and incorporated it). The mailing zip for the park is an Escondido zip code, but that doesn't mean it's in Escondido. I once lived in a small independent borough outside of a Pittsburgh, but my zip code always resolved as a Pittsburgh zip. Notice the location on this Google map; the light gray shading that extends east on route 78 is part of the city; you can verify that by looking at this official city map. So; technically, it's in the city of San Diego. Practically speaking, the nearest notable community is Escondido. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Verbivorous, I just looked at the changes you made...looks good (the neighborhood map you included on the San Pasqual page is helpful). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Wikipedian Meetup - with Jimbo Wales - October 18 2005

For any contributors to this page that might be near the San Diego area at 7:00pm on Oct 18th, 2005 - we will be having a wiki- Meetup with special guest User:Jimbo_Wales. Jimbo will be in town for OOPSLA. If you are interested, please put a note on my user page. Thanks! Johntex\^talk 00:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New mayor

The new mayor will take the oath of office December 5, 2005. Until then, the situation at City Hall remains the same, with the office vacant. [9] -Willmcw 21:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation of one dominant image of San Diego.

Though I commend my fellow wikipedia contributor by paying some attention to our mayoral scandal and noting the predominance of conservative viewpoints, I feel that there is not a true image of San Diego being presented herein. As a resident and student I am also personally interested. Note many of the photos used in the article. They seem to promote such a narrowed view of the city as is usually the fodder for the travel industries. They centre around the beaches and downtown (for the most part), ignoring a great deal of the inland communities where most of those in the service industries are bound to because of the fact that the wage, on the whole, is below the actual projected need for the average household (Note, [[10]] for reference). This and a number of other issues, including and not limited to the immigration influx and the consequences of techniques to counter it, the pollution of the river and Mission Bay (not to mention Dog Beach and elsewhere) and its connection with oversight and lax maintenance to the sewer/pipe network. I realise it is somewhat counterintuitive of me to merely complain, so I will be engaged in research in the coming month to contribute to this article. However in the meantime I hope this is in some way addressed. Thank you.

Nickname issue

The AP reported at midnight 4 Dec 2005 that "America's Finest City" had been removed from the city's website -- but a check on 5 Dec 2005 shows that that claim is no longer accurate (the phrase is still on the site or has been restored).

In fact, FOX 6 reported that Jerry Sanders pledged to restore it today (5 Dec 2005) and apparently did.

I restored the nickname to the infobox. gohlkus

Naming convention? Vote!

The basis for naming this page San Diego, California instead of simply San Diego and all other city articles according to a contrived [[City, State]] convention is a claim that this convention has been generally accepted. Yet there are important exceptions like New York City (rather than New York, New York) and no record of a vote on this issue. Shouldn't the name of this page be Boston since there is clearly no ambiguation issue (the Boston page is currently a redirect to this page anyway), and that is the universally common name used for the city (like New York City, not New York, New York, is for New York City). To settle this issue there is a vote on whether the [[City, State]] and [[Neighborhood, City, State]] conventions should apply even in cases where there is no significant ambiguity issue, such as in San Diego. You would be voting essentially on whether the name of this page and all other unambiguous city and neighborhood articles should be something like San Diego, California, New York, New York, La Jolla, San Diego, California and Hollywood, Los Angeles, California according to "convention", or named according to the unambiguous common name of the place, like San Diego, New York City, La Jolla and Hollywood (but only when the name is unambiguous), like all other Wiki articles. Vote (and discuss further) here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) --Serge 07:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided, pending further discussion. I see the benefits of both, so I'd like to hear other arguments before voting. I do like the consistency of knowing that when you have {BLANK₀}, State, you know that {BLANK₀} is a city, and when you have {BLANK₁}, {BLANK₀}, State, you know that {BLANK₁} is a part in the whole of {BLANK₀} and that {BLANK₁} is a dependent of {BLANK₀}, etc. Given all that (granted, unsubstantiated) desire for consistency, I have seen style guides (AP?) where just the city name is preferred over the city + state combination for a set list of cities (couldn't find such a list online in my quick search). So it wouldn't be completely odd to have San Diego be on Wikipedia's version of that list. (Also: I'm surprise such a city-naming standard hasn't been defined yet; can that be true?) --Derek 19:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) -Willmcw 22:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Derek, the overriding Wiki naming principle is for using common names rather than standards, regardless of context. I see no reason for this principle to not apply for cities just like for any other Wiki articles. I too see the benefit of immediately seeing from the name whether it's a city or neighborhood, but most articles start with a sentence that says this anyway, so the benefit is neglible. While consistency has its advantages, standards are also inherently constricting. Like with anything else, you have to weigh the benefits of using a given convention against the drawbacks. Please see further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) --Serge 23:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A new proposal for global cities to use a single name is being voted on at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names). If passed it would override the decision here. -Will Beback 18:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communities and neighborhoods

I think the communities and neighborhoods section should be organized with neighborhoods being shown as part of communities. For example. Bird Rock and La Jolla Shores are both neighborhoods within the community of La Jolla. --Serge 00:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify your suggestion? Are you referring to the list in this article? -Willmcw 06:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Each listed community has a separate identity and the list reflects the communities that the City of San Diego recognizes as separate

Conflicting location coordinates

The nice City Infobox says 32°42′54″ N 117°09′45″ W
the Geography section says 32°46'46" North, 117°8'47" West. ??

The latter should arguably use {{coor dms|32|46|46|N|117|08|47|W|type:city(1,305,736)}} based on my limited understanding. --Skierpage 07:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey : Howdy! What is more, some wikipedia coordiantes of cities use " whereas others use ' !!

Removal of Blink-182 from Culture section

Two reasons: (1) Are we going to list every popular band that was formed in or near San Diego? If so, shouldn't we do that to the New York and Los Angeles article as well? (2) ~~Neither Rancho Bernardo nor Poway is in the city of San Diego (though they are both in San Diego County).~~ Whoops, RB is part of the city, but Poway is not. The Blink-182 article states they are from Poway. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 21:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Center of Culture

San Diego is a Cultural Center of Southern California. It has a very large Mexican population due to its adjacent location across the border from Tijuana, a cultural center of Mexico. Latin American Culture plays a large part in San Diego. As well as cultural influences from Asia.

I have some issue with that text. I live here and thought that LA, was the center of SoCal culture. They have more people within the City Limits, and the Metor Area for one, and they have Hollywood and Beverly Hills, both quintessential symbols of Southern California. When you think of SoCal, you think of the Hollywood Sign, not the San Diego Zoo.--Chicbicyclist 06:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says a cultural center, not the cultural center. On the other hand, calling any city a "culture center" is iffy since it's hard to verify. In any case, the section you cite isn't particularly well-written or informative; I don't think it adds much to the article. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 06:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New history article, pictures

I started an independent "History of San Diego" article in the same fashion as Los Angeles. A "Main article" reference is mentioned on the trimmed history section of this article, and a new addition of the rebound of downtown is present on both versions.

Yet, my biggest issue is with the quality of the pictures: they are awful compared to the pictures of other same sized cities. I could try to take new pictures, but that's going to take centuries. -Lrd1rocha 05:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody got the incorporation date wrong. San Diego was actually incorporated in 1850. Yes, the state took their incorporation away after they bankrupted themselves, but until someone agrees to write down that part of history, the incorporation date should be listed as 1850, not 1885 or whatever it was.LAboi84 18:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    -OOPS, I just meant the main San Diego article...apparently the independent history article explains it...hope no one has an objection to me changing the date on the main San Diego page.

Notable resident: Tom Waits

Can anyone confirm that Mr. Tom Waits, singer, songwriter and musician is a resident of the city? And if so, may we add him to the list?

207.62.13.66 22:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Trisha[reply]

While it seems that he attended high school in Chula Vista and lived in San Diego at one time, the Tom Waits article states that he currently lives in Sebastopol, California. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 00:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Schools Need Separate Pages

I put a split section tag in the education section. High schools (Saint Augusting, Our Lady of Peace) should not redirect to San Diego. If they do, they should only redirect if there is actual educational info on the page.

High schools already have a joint page, High Schools of San Diego. Schools without articles of their own should redirect there. I don't see a need to change the section already in this article, it's quite short already. -Will Beback 20:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight on my part. I did create a separate page for Saint Augustine High School, removed the redirect, added a separate "high school" list in the San Diego page, and removed the section split I had previously added. -Chart123 17:02 (EDT), 4 April 2006

Cleanup Intro

I edited the introduction to get rid of some strong adjectives that are either POV or teetered close to it. Overall, the intro felt like a tourism guide, not an encylopedia entry. (For example, Hillcrest is a predominately gay and lesbian neighborhood. That's NPOV. But to say it's "out and proud" is POV.) The article overall should be edited to make sure it's wikified.

Chart123 17:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Communities" v. Separate Cities

There seems to be some confusion lingering certain spots about what constitutes the "city" and what's part of the "county." La Jolla, El Cajon, Coronado, San Ysidro, etc. are not technically part of the city, but are part of the county -- each is its own city. The "Communities" section should explicitly reflect this.

Chart123 17:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Jolla & San Ysidro are part of the City of San Diego.

Looks like I might be wrong, then. Fair enough. Can we get some references, then? Chart123 19:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed those communities are officially part of the city. Here's the official city "neighborhood" guide and it clearly has those communities within the city border. Here's the link: http://www.sandiego.gov/neighborhoods-map/index.shtml. Only Coronado is the actual city.--Chicbicyclist 20:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A significant reason for the confusion is that San Diego is so amoeba-like in layout, with lots of growth in what used to be the wide-open spaces between the other "old cities" like La Mesa or National City. As a native, I can say that most of the other natives I know refer to the whole shebang as just "San Diego", especially when referring to the area to an outsider (no one visits Chicago and says "I live in Santee, CA". See the discussion above about the WAP. I doubt many native residents could tell you for certain if the WAP was within the SD City Limits, was within another local city, or was within an unincorporated portion of San Diego County. And furthermore, I'm sure even fewer residents would care. My two cents. --Etcetera 05:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References?

There are no references on this page. San Diego is the 7th largest city in the United States. Surely we can find some references for the stats and claims?

Chart123 18:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Soltras 05:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rid of POV language

There remains a good bit of POV language. "Out and proud," describing Hillcrest in the overview, for example, is POV and should be removed.

To repeat my earlier post, the whole article should be edited to get rid of POV language. Chart123 14:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just added some citations as a start. It probably will need further reformatting to totally fix though. --Mind21 98 05:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research and Advert tags

I read through the article and did some minor cleanup of POV terms (though there wasn't much, mostly just in the cuisine section). Anyone have any objections to removal of these tags? OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 20:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citation to back up the claim that SD was the seventh largest US city. Until other original research in the article can be specifically identified on the talk page, I removed the original research tag. Soltras 05:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More community section goodness

I am revising the communities and neighborhoods section. I am removing alot of the developer named "communities"(like Pacific Highland Ranch, Fairbanks Country Club, Santa Luz, Murphy Canyon, San Pasqual, Miramar North Ranch - some of these communities are actually part of other pre-existing neighborhood/community) and will be using the official city list found here:

http://www.sandiego.gov/neighborhoods-map/index.shtml

In the case of some neighborhoods where they are divided into East and West(as is the case of Mission Valley, Clairemont Mesa, City Heights, and others) or North and South, I will be combining them into one common name instead. I am doing this to avoid more confusion, have a standard, prevent further conflicts regarding what constitutes a community that is part of San Diego, what an actual part of what community is and tidy that section up.--Chicbicyclist 21:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that rework. A cautionary note, I'd be hesitant to use the City of San Diego's website as an authority. There are significant errors in the maps via the link you used above (including transposition of location of San Carlos and Lake Murray, misspellings of neighborhood names, incorrect grouping and dividing, etc.). I would sooner trust a Thomas Bros.- or AAA-created map than the city's own site, which is sad. [If only the city's webmaster was as meticulous as Wikipedians are!] --Derek 23:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you to take the city's own website with an appropriate grain of salt but this would at least stop people from adding overly obvious developer named communities from the previous version. If anybody is more knowledgeable than I am in the groupings, especially with the neighborhoods and communities in the northern and southern part of the city, I invite them to contribute or revise the current version. Also, I need inputs on wether some communities listed in the Western grouping are more appropriate in the Central grouping, especially the older neighborhoods immediately north/northeast of Downtown, immediatlye south of Mission Valley, and West of Midcity. Considering they have more in common culturally with downtown than beach communities, they are denser and more urban then the latter.--Chicbicyclist 00:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add link to San Diego internment story on Smithsonian site?

Dear Editors,

I am a writer for the Smithsonian's Center for Education and Museum Studies, which publishes Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a magazine for teachers. An online version of an issue titled "Letters from the Japanese American Internment" is available at this address:

http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/japanese_internment/index.html

The issue tells the story of the San Diego Public Library's children's librarian, Clara Breed, and her correspondence with young San Diegans sent to the camp at Poston, Arizona. The link was graciously added to the Wikipedia Japanese American Internment article. If you think that this might also add, in an ancillary way, to San Diego history, we'd be grateful for a link here, too.

Best wishes!