Talk:San Diego/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Is there any way to block this one phrase?

Is there any way to block edits to this article that contain the phrase "whale's vagina"? That tired old joke, from the movie Anchoman, gets added here again and again. We have had some respite during periods when the article was semi-protected, but they won't give us semi-protection permanently, and anyhow the problem is not actually with non-autoconfirmed users as such - it is with non-autoconfirmed users who try to insert this one phrase into this one article. Is there anyone with the skill to make a bot that would automatically reject this edit? Is there anyplace I can ask for it? --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually found the place! I asked for help here: Wikipedia:Bot requests#Bot to target a common vandalism at San Diego article. Let's see if some nice bot-writer can come to our rescue. --MelanieN (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The folks at that site said semi-protection would be better than a bot or edit-filter, and they gave us an indefinite semi-protection. Yay! --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why we can't get permanent semi protection for a high traffic article.JOJ ^Hutton 17:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we just did! --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April 2012 -- fixed broken SDSU library link

Found a Wayback Machine copy of ref#112; please add it in: http://web.archive.org/web/20051103013223/http://infodome.sdsu.edu/research/libdirectory/index.shtml -- 132.239.188.243 (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Y Done. Thanks for the link. --MelanieN (talk) 05:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Border Name

Hello. I understand trying to give Mexico credence, but this can be done to a fault. If we are writing about the United States or cities within the United States, and then we refer to the national border, this should be written as United States - Mexico border, not Mexico - United States border. However, if we are talking about the country of Mexico or Mexican cities, then it should be written as Mexico - United States border. A little pyschology: The United States is the strongest country on Earth, the only superpower. As a result, some feel the need not to put the United States' name first, because they believe it may imply that the other country (whatever country that may be) is second tiered compared to the US. So they tend to try and compensate for this by putting the other country's name first. But the correct way to handle this is by actually keeping things consistent. In other words, whatever country or city you are writing about, that country's name should always go first when referring to a border with another country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't even see the place in the article you are talking about - where it says "Mexico-United States border". Can you point it out, please? --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Spain didn't Exist at that time

I would like to propose an edit to be historically accurate.

In second paragraph is said that Juan Cabrillo claimed the entire area for Spain.

That's totally inaccurate since at that time Spain didn't not exist as a political unity, country, estate or nation... it was the Kingdom of Castilia (Reino de Castilla) which was one of the kingdoms of the "Spains" (Reino de las Españas). And the Isabel la Católica (Elisabeth the Catholic) Queen of Castilia, was clear that any land discovered will be only from her kingdom, Castilia.

At that time Spain was a geographical designation, something like now we define Scandiavia. Not existing any political entity existing as Scandinavia.

Spain becomes a de facto political entity in the 1716 with the Decree of New Plant and in 1812 with the first Constitution.

Before Spain (as a region) was a conglomerate of different kingdoms as it was in most Europe.

Although that may be "Technically" correct, most of the sources usually say "Spain".--JOJ ^Hutton 21:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:San Diego/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   "Many San Diego home buyers tend to buy homes within many affordable neighborhoods, while others…" should be "Many of San Diego's home buyers tend to buy homes within many affordable neighborhoods, while others…"  Done

   "…regular scheduled service in spring 2012, an economic loss to the region of more than $100 million." needs to say that it was "which was an economic loss" Done

   "Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT) create funding for the City of San Diego Commission for Arts and Culture." should be have created instead of just created.  Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Reference #33 was tagged as a dead link but still needs to be taken care of.  Done

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The sentence about the study that Walk Score did is unnecessary.  Done - Removed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   That is all, the article has changed a bit, but it is still doing well.

What is a GA reassessment

This was requested by MelanieN. A Good article reassessment (or GAR) is a process to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article (GA) status. GAR can sometimes provide more feedback for delisted articles or failed GA nominations. However, it is not a peer review process; for that see Wikipedia:Peer review. The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. Obtund^Talk 04:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

And I gather from what you said on your talk page that reassessment is a routine thing - it doesn't necessarily mean that anything was wrong or anyone complained. I was wondering if we should be alarmed; apparently not. I will get to work tomorrow on some of the problems you have identified. Thanks for your review. --MelanieN (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I looked here to see what that little purple clock face means; apparently it means the article is "on hold" to give us time to fix the problems. --MelanieN (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is on hold for three day, but I usually give a week anyways. Don't be alarmed it is just us GA reviewers doing our jobs. There are only 3 or 4 minor things to take care of so it should not take up too much of your time. Obtund^Talk 05:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to fix the items you identified above! Reference 34 appears to be a live link [1]. This review actually provided a good incentive to reread the entire article and fix a few things. --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Tuna

SusanLesch reminded me that we had discussed adding information to the article about San Diego's history with the tuna industry. It wasn't that many decades ago that San Diego was the tuna capital of the country, and that fishing for tuna and canning it were major industries here. That industry is pretty much gone now. I plan to add something about it but would like people's opinions about which section it should go into - History or Economy? --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I would think both, but mainly in the history section. Chicken of the Sea and Bumble Bee are still based in San Diego, so that might be good to mention in the economy section (along with sportsfishing, which I see needs to be added as well...). Thanks for adding this, Melanie! Dohn joe (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Y Done - with a mention under Economy, a paragraph under History, and a larger paragraph at History of San Diego. --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Missile development

Perhaps, this maybe better off at the sub-article History of San Diego, but I am surprised there is no mention here of the Aerospace industries' early development of the American space progam in California, namely the missiles that got the payloads into space. Here is an article that touches upon it from the Los Angeles Times:

• Tory Perry (9 July 1995). "CALIFORNIA ALBUM : A Symbol for the Decline of Aerospace : General Dynamics was once San Diego County's largest private employer. But with the Cold War's end it has been vanishing piece by piece. It even--to the dismay of many--is dismantling Missile Park, its popular playground". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 3 February 2013.

And here is another article from the U-T:

• Gary Robbins (9 March 2011). "Museum honors Convair's contributions to Atlas missile". San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved 3 February 2013.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. The information in this article is mostly about direct military activity, that is, military bases; there isn't much about the private industry side of defense, where San Diego used to be in the forefront and is still important. In addition to missile development we had huge plane-manufacturing operations, particularly during WW II, and the current shipbuilding and ship servicing operations. These things are mentioned in passing under History, but I think a more specific paragraph about the defense industry should go in the Economy section, Defense and Military subsection. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me assist in providing some sources:

• Chris Kraul (2 July 1994). "Convair Plant in San Diego to Close by 1996 : Manufacturing: Move will end 1,900 jobs and the city's long tradition of building planes". New York Times. Retrieved 5 February 2013.
• "Atlas Missile Project". San Diego Air & Space Museum. 2013. Retrieved 5 February 2013.
• Starr, Kevin (2011). Coast of Dreams. Random House Digital, Inc. p. 374-375. ISBN 9780307795267. Retrieved 5 February 2013. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)
• Mellin, Maribeth; Onstott, Jane; Devlin, Judith C. (2009). Insiders' Guide to San Diego. Globe Pequot. p. 28. ASIN B002A9JHC6. Retrieved 5 February 2013. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Listing O'Connor under "major scandals"

I don't think ex-mayor O'Connor's legal troubles should be included under "major scandals". I don't really think this amounts to a "scandal," it's more of a personal issue - granted, a sensational one. But this case has nothing to do with government as the other listed "scandals" do - in fact, "Major scandals" is a subsection under "Government". O'Connor has been out of office for more than 20 years, and her alleged misappropriation of charity funds began after she was long out of office. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd go even further and say that the "Major scandals" subsection should be deleted entirely. Right now it's an arbitrary list of scandals that happened to some San Diego political figures. I don't think that this information is notable enough to include on the main page about the City of San Diego. Each of these scandals is better described on the page about the individual politician. Finally, it doesn't look like the government section of other US cities include random lists like this, (See New York#Politics and government, Los Angeles#Government, Chicago#Law and government, San Francisco#Law and government for examples). I think that this section is better reserved to describing San Diego's government rather than including a list of trivia. mcd51 (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Please include me

In "Friends Who Have Lived In San Diego", I'd like to be added. Lived in Ocean Beach 1964 to 1967 while in the Navy. John Truesdale (Facebook; john.h.truesdale) New to this and how do I get a picture on here.

70.190.21.71 (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you lived in San Diego. However, this is not Facebook. There is no such section in the article as "Friends who have lived in San Diego". Wikipedia articles don't include the names or pictures of everyone who has lived in a particular place. This is an international encyclopedia, and the only people who get mentioned in Wikipedia are people are "notable" (as defined here). Don't feel bad; I have lived in San Diego for more than 30 years, but my name and picture aren't in the article either. --MelanieN (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Tuna industry

Somebody just added to the Economy section, in good faith, the entire section about the tuna industry copied from History of San Diego. I appreciate their desire to help, but I reverted the addition, because there is already a full paragraph about the tuna industry under the History section, as well as a mention under Economy. That layout was decided upon in an earlier discussion, see "Tuna" higher up on this talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)e

City Altitude Range In Article is Incorrect

The highest elevation within San Diego city limits is Cowles Mountain, at an elevation of 1,593 feet, not the 400 foot maximum elevation listed in the article. The lowest elevation number is also incorrect. Consider the Harbor-front which is easily only 15-20 feet above sea level, or consider the city Beaches, which since they are on city proper, would take the lowest sea level point in the city to zero, not the 72 feet currently listed in the article. For ample citations see other related Wikipedia articles. 64.134.239.182 (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I have fixed it. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Auto archiving for talk

I think we should set up auto archiving for this talk page, since the page is getting way too large. JC · Xbox · Talk · Contributions 03:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

How do we set up auto archiving? Anyone know? I only know how to manually archive my own talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Name Etymology

We should note that the name "San Diego" is originally German and means "a whale's vagina" probably at the beginning of the article.

Sorry. That stupid old joke (yes, it's from Anchoman, we get it) is the main reason this article is protected from editing by unregistered people like you. --MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 July 2013

As of Jan 1, 2013 the San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau became the San Diego Tourism Authority and we would like the name to be updated on this page. We've also updated the website and some URLs have changed.

Reference 108 please update link to http://www.sandiego.org/industry-research.aspx and name from San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau to San Diego Tourism Authority

External links change name from San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau to San Diego Tourism Authority

Thank you, Cindy Turrietta SEM Specialist San Diego Tourism Authority 619-557-2898

Cinderella314 (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Y Done. Thanks for the information. --MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Spam link???

The link to Professor Monte Marshall's paper on the geology of San Diego was just bot-tagged as spam. I can't imagine why. I have appealed the designation at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist so hopefully we can remove this blot on our Good Article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

From comments at the appeal, it appears this is probably a false positive on the part of the bot. I am hopeful we can restore this reference soon. --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yay! User:Ohnoitsjamie removed the link from the spam list fixed the link so that we can use it, and restored the information. Thanks, Jamie, and welcome back, Dr. Marshall! --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I just whitelisted Dr. Marshall's domain; I don't want to unilaterally remove A.B.'s blacklisting without discussing the matter with him first. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Same effect here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 September 2013

In the "International Trade" section, I suggest changing the picture of downtown San Diego from the current picture "Downtown_San_Diego_01.jpg" from Commons to "San Diego Skyline at Dawn.jpg" also from Commons which is more aesthetically pleasing and has a similar vantage point.

99.59.118.236 (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Downtown_San_Diego_01.jpg File:San Diego Skyline at Dawn.jpg Jim1138 (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I'd note that, aesthetic considerations aside, the proposed new image has a wider field and shows more of the city's skyline. Rivertorch (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Missing museum in the Culture section

Please add the San Diego Air & Space Museum to the list of museums located in Balboa Park to the Culture section. Book&stein (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Seems reasonable. Rivertorch (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

History subsections

I see that User:Asiaticus added the subsections "Old Town" and "New Town" to the History section. I agree that subsections are a good idea and thank you for that, but I'm not sure that "Old Town" and "New Town" are the ideal breaks. They are geographical, not historical, and they overlap in time to some extent. I think it might make more sense to divide the section by political/governmental control - for example "Pre-colonial period" or "Native American period"; "Spanish period"; "Mexican period"; and "American period." Or possibly just "Native American" or "Indigenous peoples of California"; "Spain" or "New Spain"; "Mexico"; and "United States". What do the rest of you think? --MelanieN (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

My vote is "Native American period"; "Spanish period"; "Mexican period"; and "American period." Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Street Lights Upgrade

Somebody recently added these two paragraphs to the "neighborhoods" section. I tagged them both as "citation needed"; IMO they are also rather POV.

There has been pressure on parks and residents to remove generations of diverse landscaping, made possible by the region's unique climate, in order to reallocate some of the area's limited water supply toward high-density urban redevelopment.[citation needed]
In 2011, the City began to upgrade to energy-efficient streetlights, becoming one of the first large cities to do so. In addition to saving energy costs, another deciding factor was increased visibility for local law enforcement. Downsides include release of toxins into the environment, discomfort and disability glare and risks associated with excessive light pollution and over-illumination, such as disturbance of wildlife, visibility impairment of astronomical observatories and impacts on human health.[citation needed]

In a quick search I could find no online substantiation of the supposed pressure to remove landscaping, or of the 2011 upgrade to the streetlights. (Of course, the streetlights have been a source of contention between residents and astronomers since at least the 1980s.) Keeping in mind that this is a Good Article, I think these statements need to be either substantiated or removed. --MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It is right to question this addition. It looks like it violates WP:No original research, for one, and it also puts forward an activist argument. Somebody wants something changed in city government, and they are using Wikipedia as a platform. Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I took both paragraphs out. If anybody wants to re-add them, let's discuss it here. --MelanieN (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Later: The same user restored the information, this time supplying citations. Unfortunately, the citations proved that the information was incorrect. San Diego did not install LED lights; it installed induction lighting. I corrected the information and formatted the references correctly. Now that the information is in the article and sourced, I don't think "neighborhoods" is the correct place for it. Any ideas where in the article we should put it? --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I never mentioned the type of upgrade specifically, only in regard to Los Angeles (LED). I'd still like to include the controversial aspects of ultra bright, mercury based street lighting, as well as its benefits, in a neutral manner. --Phillip12345678910

Sorry. The Coast Portland source[2] is not neutral; it is from a company that sells LED lighting. And the darksky reference does not seem to say any of the things attributed to it. I deleted them both. Before you add anything else, PLEASE propose it here and let's talk it out; edit warring on an article is very much frowned upon. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I actually dispute the whole idea of adding critiques of the city's lighting system to an article about a city. I think these "references on the dangers" of the various lighting methods would be more appropriate at the articles about those lighting methods - rather than on the pages of every town and city that uses them. What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I can understand how keeping a positive image of San Diego can be a legitimate priority, as long as it's realistic. Although we don't want to look at everything 'with rose colored glasses', rose colored street light covers would be nice! As it is, the article presents only the advantages of inductive street lighting (Removed my personal insight to save room). --Phillip12345678910

Nobody is trying to keep out negative information, or to present only the rosy side of San Diego. On the contrary, you can see that this Wikipedia article has plenty of information about San Diego problems and things that make San Diego look bad. Those things are here because they were well publicized and are sourced to reliable sources. In contrast, pretty much everything you said in your explanation above is original research and synthesis. (Please read those links.) Your conversations with officials are unallowable Original Research. So are your own observations about the street lights. None of what you just said is "admissible," so to speak. If this issue has not been significantly reported by neutral Reliable Sources, it can't go in here. Period. No matter how important you think it is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, and it publishes only what has already been published elsewhere by Reliable Sources. What we can reliably source at this point is that the street lights were upgraded, beginning in 2011; that about 80% of the upgrades were induction lighting; and that 3000 LED lights are being set up with intelligent controls. But I can find no reliable-source commentary about these choices, either for or against, and you haven't been able to come up with any either. To give you an idea: I just spent 20 minutes searching for anything related to what you are saying. No luck. For example,

• I found this, but it is neither neutral or a Reliable Source.
• I found this claim in Time Magazine that San Diego was considering solar powered lights. No followup so nothing helpful there.
• I found this about the 3000 LED lights with smart controls. But it's a press release from GE. Not independent or reliable. Besides we already have a better source on that.
• Here is the city's own analysis of "advanced street lighting technologies"; that could be used as a Reliable Source if you find anything in it that you want to include.
• Here is the fact sheet from Mayor Sanders; I think you have already seen that. It's a press release so not really independent, but it could be cited to show what the city was doing and why.
  

Bottom line, unless there are independent reliable sources raising questions about the San Diego street lights, this article can't raise questions about them either. That's the way Wikipedia works. That's what makes it an encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. If you can't find Independent Reliable support for your analysis, and if you feel the information is incomplete or one-sided without the negatives, I would be perfectly happy to delete all reference to the street light upgrade. IMO the article would be fine without any mention of the street lights. There are other places on the internet where you can expound your analysis of the street light situation without having to deal with the strict sourcing requirements of an international encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look for references, Melanie. Sorry I didn't make it clearer, but I wasn't intending to include any of the new info I shared, I'd simply like to mention disadvantage from brighter, more harsh glare. "..but also increases glare, light pollution and risks of over-illumination, lowering visual comfort probability. --Phillip12345678910 (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

...and the source to be cited for the last part of your proposed sentence? In other words, what reference would we cite, between 37 and 38, to support this? As I keep saying, it is all about sources here. Without a source we really have nothing to talk about - and no way to add it to the article.

I would have no problem with a brief summary such as you have provided, as long as it is referenced to an Independent Reliable Source. However, if the source doesn't specifically mention San Diego we should tweak the grammar a little - maybe make it a separate sentence describing induction technology in general - so as not to imply that the source attributed these problems specifically to San Diego's system. Also to make it clearer, when you say "increases", what you are comparing it to: The previous system? Or alternative lighting systems that the city didn't choose?

As for the other articles you mentioned: nobody has said that information about the disadvantages of a particular technology is unencyclopedic. On the contrary, such information absolutely should be included, properly sourced, in articles about that technology, as well as in separate articles of their own. I'm still puzzled why you are so determined to add this kind of thing to an article about a city that uses a particular technology. Such critiques would normally be included in a city article only if there had been a notable public debate over the issue, documented in newspaper articles and political speeches and other public forums (for example the 1980s street light battle between the city and the Mount Palomar astronomers, which could be well sourced). But I've seen no evidence that this San Diego light upgrade is a significant public controversy - which is why we are having such trouble finding sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinks are not references. And a Wikipedia article cannot be used as a source here. (I had trouble understanding that myself, when I was new here, but it makes sense.) See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources for explanation. We still need an independent reliable source. Not a Wikipedia article, not a point of view pusher, not somebody trying to sell something - but something like a newspaper article or scholarly analysis. Preferably a source that actually relates to the San Diego system so that we aren't doing WP:SYNTHESIS. (I couldn't even find a letter to the editor about the subject, much less a news report. I found literally nothing at all about San Diego's new lights being dangerous or controversial. Obviously a letter to the editor would not qualify as a Reliable Source, but to me the lack of one indicated there just hasn't been any public outcry or reaction about these lights. We can't use this article to START the public dialogue on the issue; that's not what Wikipedia is for.) MelanieN (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

We have a reference in that the new street lights were claimed to be 'safer' (i.e., provide more light). Light pollution has to do with the amount of light used (Removed lengthy excerpts about light pollution). --Phillip12345678910 (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Now that's what I call a wall of text. My views on light pollution and the implementation of energy-saving light bulbs in the U.S. are strong enough that I'm probably not the best person to be discussing this with, but putting my Wikipedian hat on firmly and setting aside my own views for the moment, I'll say this much. In skimming what you wrote, I get the sense that we need to be concerned about undue weight and synthesis here, and maybe soapbox, too. Can you distill the changes you want to see in the article down into something short and readable? And can you assure us that your proposed changes are fully compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:ISNOT? Rivertorch (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure. "..by producing more light, but also increases light pollution, lowering visual comfort probability." --Phillip12345678910 (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that's much clearer. To justify your proposed change, I think we need a reliable source demonstrating that the issue of increased light pollution from induction lamps in San Diego has received sufficient publicity to be noteworthy. This could be a newspaper article or a report commissioned by the city government or whatever, but we need to be careful not to extrapolate based on findings in other cities and we need to ensure we're not merely reporting what advocacy groups have said. We can't use another Wikipedia article as a reference, and I'd recommend against any mention of visual comfort probability since our own article on it is the merest stub. Rivertorch (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

So, it's down to just: "but also increases light pollution." Here's a local astronomy page for concern over light pollution from San Diego's street lights. It doesn't mention the upgrade, because it predates it, but it specifically covers light pollution from San Diego street lights as a local concern: http://www.sdaa.org/lightpollution.htm --Phillip12345678910 (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think the sdaa.org reference quite fits the bill. Light pollution is a major concern of nearly every urban astronomy society. Maybe induction lighting will become a published concern of the SDAA, but apparently it isn't now. You and I (and plenty of our readers) can put 2 and 2 together and get 4, but it's not necessarily kosher for the article to do that. The article needs to follow the sources, and if we don't have a reliable source that connects the dots—i.e., that discusses increased light pollution from a new kind of streetlight in San Diego—then I don't think it legitimately belongs in the article at this time. Rivertorch (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I've found an official City of San Diego page covering the fact that yellow Low Pressure Sodium street lights were kept within a 30-mile radius of Palomar Observatory, because they emit lower amounts of light pollution than the new induction street lights, see second paragraph (It seems rather sad, though, thinking a 30-mile radius would save Palomar. From what I've heard, the new street lights have rendered the Observatory practically defunct) http://www.sandiego.gov/street-div/services/electrical/strlight.shtml --Phillip12345678910 (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that source as acceptable for the limited purpose of supporting the phrase, "but also increases light pollution". Anybody else care to weigh in? Rivertorch (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC) P.S. Please go read WP:TP, especially the section about indentation. Otherwise, if a third person does join (or rejoin) the thread, it may get very confusing very fast trying to figure out who's replying to whom. Rivertorch (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this some kind of elaborate hoax? Surely you folks don't actually countenance vandalizing this article with trivia about the current composition of some small fraction of San Diego's street lamps. This is the authoritative article canonically describing the historical and present existence of a major American city. Will the schoolchildren of Nepal in 2064 need to know about street lights in order to completely comprehend all that is San Diego? Probably not; most people living here today do not know and/or care about the issue. 184.182.190.146 (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think major changes in utilities, citywide (not only a small fraction), are noteworthy for a brief mention as now exists. Public lighting upgrades are actually a global issue right now, so it may come to affect the children in Nepal, too, and San Diego was one of the first to switch to an early form of induction lamps, so that's a significant little sliver of current history. The bulk of the discussion on this talk page involved needing a valid reference in order to mention a disadvantage to the upgrade. The result was a five word phrase mentioning light pollution, with a reference link to a local municipal site. --Phillip12345678910 (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, I realize that I am anonymous and that my opinion doesn't count here. However, I'll point out that the articles for New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, and Philadelphia do not mention street lights or lamps. There are already articles on light pollution and the low-sodium lamps; they do not mention San Diego. So not only are the lights not material to the history of SD, apparently neither is SD material to the history of the lights. Unless, that is, you take a specific (and representative only of a certain elite section of the population!) non-NPOV that light pollution is 1.a thing in cities and 2.matters. Too, there's still a typo in the sentence. Enjoy your consensus of smart white people that don't work at night. 108.223.82.159 (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. You gave me an idea with your word "utilities". I was never comfortable putting this information under "neighborhoods"; I am going to move it to "Infrastructure:Utilities" where it makes more sense. What typo are you referring to? If you meant the somewhat shaky grammar of the last sentence, I have fixed it and broken it into several sentences. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Moving the paragraph to Infrastructure:Utilities addresses the concern of finding an appropriate place for it in the article. To Anonymous (108.223,etc.) - Anyone's relevant input here is valued. --Phillip12345678910 (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(Back from vacation) It looks like while I was gone you folks worked out a very acceptable way to include this information. It is cited and neutral. Rivertorch, thanks for jumping in to help. Phillip, thanks for hanging in there through all the demands for references, which must have been frustrating for you, and for working with others to come out with an acceptable result. That's WP:Consensus and it's the Wikipedia way of doing things. Now stick around and continue to help build the encyclopedia! (But stick to what we can verify.) --MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. IF the new lights have made the Palomar observatory "practically defunct", they don't seem to mention it on their web page. --MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

What I 'heard' came from a chance discussion with a community volunteer. I've contacted an astronomer's group, who said they were affected by the upgrade. New lighting shields help block direct upward glare (not a big help for residents, obviously), but the Observatory was affected simply because of how much brighter the new lights are. --Phillip12345678910 (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

New proposal

Per a suggestion above I have moved this section from "Neighborhoods" to "Infrastructure". I am also thinking we could add a sentence or two about the widely-reported controversy in the 1980s regarding the street lights and Palomar Observatory. That would put the whole issue in perspective as well as establishing the notability of the topic. How about something like this, in a subsection "street lights" under "infrastructure":

In the middle part of the 20th century the city had mercury vapor street lamps. In 1978 the city decided to replace them with more efficient sodium vapor lamps. The proposal triggered an outcry from astronomers at Palomar Observatory 60 miles north of the city; they said the proposed lamps would increase light pollution and interfere with astronomical observation. The city altered its lighting regulations to limit light pollution within 30 miles of Palomar.

In 2011, the City announced plans to upgrade 80% of its street lighting to new energy-efficient street lights which use induction technology, a modified form of fluorescent lamp that produces a broader spectrum than sodium-vapor lamps. The new system is predicted to save $2.2 million per year in energy and maintenance costs. The city stated the changes would "make our neighborhoods safer." They may also increase light pollution.
In 2014, San Diego announced plans to become the first U.S. city to install cyber-controlled street lighting, using an "intelligent" lighting system to control 3,000 LED street lights.

--MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

MelanieN - I like the addition, currently the comment regarding light pollution seems to come out of left field. Since it is a sourced description of the controversy, and not merely anecdotal, I feel it's pertinent. The only other option is to simply delete the light pollution comment, but I don't feel that's the right direction to go. Onel5969 (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If it sounds a little off, it's probably because it's been recast in a doubtful way ('may' increase light pollution). It should be stated as a fact, as it has as good a reference as possible - Local, by the city who installed them, plus with updated reference to the Palomar issue. --Phillip12345678910 (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I see you removed "may" at the article; that's OK with me. I'm going to add the Palomar paragraph, both because that controversy is far more notable than the current changes, and because it provides context for why light pollution matters. --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Election results

The election results cited in the San Diego article are the COUNTY's results and not the city's. Someone who can edit that should get rid of those figures, seeing as they do NOT represent the city's results. It'd be like representing Cook County, IL's results as Chicago's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meirionnydd (talk • contribs) 17:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Good catch; this data is indeed for the county and already present on San Diego County, California. I removed the table as requested. mcd51 (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Request to remove full protection of the redirect at San Diego, California

Many of the same arguments which I have brought up at Talk:Miami#Request to undo full protection of the redirect at Miami, Florida can be applied here as well. I shouldn't have to get an administrator just to make a tiny little change to an redirect, of all things. It was even the same administrator who fully protected these two redirects. Dustin (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

sp of California may be wrong

"califonia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.88.72 (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for the alert. But it was HARD to find! Next time tell us where it is in the article! --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

But I did? May I suggest the use of available internet tools, i.e. "find" box, especially in the edit screen so that access to citations, coding links etc is available. It saves wonders when looking for a particular character, word or phrase. I would have been more than happy to have corrected like all the other various sp of CA but the article was locked regardless of reason. The revert button seems to be so resourceful for the many others that use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.88.72 (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you not notice that I fixed it? 0;-D At first I tried just reading through the article, thinking it would jump out at me - but when that didn't work I resorted to "search" and found it in the title of a reference. But still, when you are offering a suggestion like this, and implicitly asking someone to fix it, it would be a nice courtesy to tell the person where to find it.

And as it happens there is a good reason why the article is "locked"; it had been subject to persistent vandalism. You look like the kind of person who should NOT be locked out of such articles; may I suggest you choose a username? Once you establish a (still anonymous) Wikipedia identity you can become an "autoconfirmed" user and able to edit such articles. --MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not here to belabor the point. The article was locked. As such who ever and for whatever reason the article was locked is not my prerogative or concern. I found the misspelling and reported it. Enough was reported to use the right strategy and tools to find it. I would assume that with an ability to change a locked article has in it some capability of competency and experience. You assumed to use a means that is not the best universal approach. Misspellings by nature is not recognizing by sight/reading necessarily findable. Not everything is searchable in the article reading state. Not everything that may need to be changed is in the article reading state. To first approach finding something by reading it is not the best use of one's time or tools when more direct means are available. That was not used and that is not my problem. Changing my current ID choice is not going to change any one's search strategy. Therefore that is not a solution to the experience at hand and I have no desire to change my ID status. I did not ask you to change it. I did not force anyone to change it. I did not force anyone to use a find strategy that was the least effective. The experience was unfortunate not the best for you but at least now it is known that there is a better search strategy. It somewhat has to be accepted that a misspelling is by virtue of it's existence the eye not recognizing that something is amiss. To use the same strategy vacates just how something may have come about. Maybe a different strategy needs to be used as a misspelling unrecognized by one person may be of the site style that id not readily recognizable to everyone, even when reading. I will keep my current ID and WP will continue to be correctable. All is well with the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.88.72 (talk) 06:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

LGBT Cutlure Section

Why is there an LGBT culture section? It is my opinion that having a specific section for just LGBT gives it undue weight in the article. Demographically there are more White, Hispanic, and Asians who live in the city, yet they don't have their own sections in demographic section. A mention, perhaps limited to a paragraph I can see, but an entire section IMHO gives undue weight to that minority population, especially when other minority populations are not highlighted in the Culture section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively, the content can be moved to the Culture of San Diego sub-article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you may be right. This article is about the city as a whole; a section devoted to this one group is overkill. There are multiple sections at the article History of San Diego about ethnic and cultural groups, including an LBGT section, so we do have the information in the 'pedia already. It seems logical that there could also be such sections at the Culture of San Diego article, but currently there are not.

What do others think? Should we remove this section from this article? IMO a paragraph about LBGT coud be inserted into the history section here. San Diego did make some LGBT history over the last couple of years, with regard to American servicepeople marching in the San Diego Pride parade - the first time such participation had been allowed by DOD. --MelanieN (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The section cites facts on a cultural group in San Diego. If other cultural sectors of San Diego want their own paragraph, I don't see why they shouldn't. For whatever reason, the authors chose to include it. Deleting the cited information on a sizable community within San Diego would appear politically motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.54.89 (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Assume good faith, please. The issue here is that other cultural sectors of San Diego DON'T have their own section- not in this article. They do in History of San Diego, where LGBT quite properly also has a section. But here in the San Diego article, it is WP:UNDUE for just one group to have a section. Looking at the content of that section, I suggest we move it to a paragraph under Demographics. What do others think of that idea? --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN. Onel5969 (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done I moved it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2014

Under Native American period, there are only two sentences that pertain to the Native Americans and their time in the region before colonization. It seems hard to believe that an entire people's history could be summed up so concisely but even the Kumeyaay people's own page is light on their history. In any case, the following is clearly unrelated to Native American history and so I would propose that it be moved from the Native Americans period to the Spanish period. Apologies if my request is not formatted well, this is new to me.

The first European to visit the region was Portuguese-born explorer Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo sailing under the flag of Castile. Sailing his flagship San Salvador from Navidad, New Spain, Cabrillo claimed the bay for the Spanish Empire in 1542 and named the site 'San Miguel'.[9] In November 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 de Alcalá. On November 12, 1602, the first Christian religious service of record in Alta California was conducted by Friar Antonio de la Ascensión, a member of Vizcaíno's expedition, to celebrate the feast day of San Diego.[10]

Inhumantsar (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Shaun

Inhumantsar (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You make a good point. That material sounds like it is more about Spain than it is about Native Americans. However, it is about the time before colonization by the Spanish, which is the subject of the next section. I think I will change the section heading to "Pre-colonial period". Will that meet your request here? BTW I would also love to see more about the Native Americans who lived in the area; if you can point us to any sources to expand that information, please do. --MelanieN (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

After the mayor Kevin Faulconer's name, put (R) to show his political party preference, which is Republican since it shows the political part affiliation for all mayors of all large cities. Ankit Kaushal135 (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request re: population information in first paragraph

The information about the population in the introductory paragraph is oddly broken up into the second and last sentences:

San Diego /ˌsæn diːˈeɪɡoʊ/ is a major city in California, on the coast of the Pacific Ocean in Southern California, approximately 120 miles (190 km) south of Los Angeles and immediately adjacent to the border with Mexico. San Diego is the eighth-largest city in the United States and second-largest in California and is one of the fastest growing cities in the nation.[10] San Diego is the birthplace of California[11] and is known for its mild year-round climate, natural deep-water harbor, extensive beaches, long association with the U.S. Navy, and recent emergence as a healthcare and biotechnology development center. The population was estimated to be 1,322,553 as of 2012.[12]

Also the phrase "one of the fastest growing cities in the nation" is subjective, imprecise and arguably inaccurate. According to following page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

On a per-capita basis, San Diego's recent growth rate is 128 out of the top 381 U.S. cities. Also, as detailed on the above linked page, comparison based on city-proper population is flawed. The metropolitan statistical area population should also be include to provide a more accurate depiction of the city's size. Therefore I propose the following introductory paragraph:

San Diego /ˌsæn diːˈeɪɡoʊ/ is a major city in California, on the coast of the Pacific Ocean in Southern California, approximately 120 miles (190 km) south of Los Angeles and immediately adjacent to the border with Mexico. With a 2012 estimated population of 1,322,553 [12], San Diego is the eighth-largest city in the United States and second-largest in California. The San Diego metropolitan area is the 17th-largest in the United States. San Diego is the birthplace of California[11] and is known for its mild year-round climate, natural deep-water harbor, extensive beaches, long association with the U.S. Navy, and recent emergence as a healthcare and biotechnology development center.

 Done I agree with deleting the "fastest growing city" claim and moving the population statistic. Thanks for the suggestion. --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request re: info box

Most city info boxes include ranking next to metro area population in the city info box. Please add it to this page. So instead of:

population_metro = 3,095,313

population_urban = 2,956,746

These lines would be:

population_metro = 3,095,313 (17th)

population_urban = 2,956,746 (15th)

Thanks!

•  Done. Thank you kindly! -SusanLesch (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Anian?

Article Strait of Anian says that San Diego is called Anian. Could someone with local knowledge clean this up?. It sounds like nonsense to me. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree and I have removed the sentence from that article. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Political Party affiiliation of San Diego Mayor

I think that the Letter D or R representing the Democratic Party or Republican Party should be listed next to the mayor's name because it is listed next to the name of the mayor for all the major cities in the US. In this case there should be an R next to Kevin Faulconer since the mayor is a Republican. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akaushal93610 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Not done This does not appear to be done for major cities in California (see Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Jose) - probably because local offices are officially nonpartisan per California state law. His political affiliation is noted elsewhere in the article, but it is not needed in the infobox. --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding Mission Beach as a neighborhood in between Pacific Beach and Ocean Beach

It is a major part of the beach from communities in San Diego and a well known destination.

Here is Wikipedia's article on Mission Beach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Beach,_San_Diego — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtbittaker (talk • contribs) 09:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added Mission Beach, with link, as you suggested. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Name Meaning

All joking aside, there probably should be a section that explains that "San Diego" translates to Saint James in English. Lots of articles have something similar in parentheses in the first sentence. I'd add it myself, but the page is locked.

22:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.217.84.1 (talk)

Thanks for your suggestion. But I don't find Reliable Source support for the idea that "Diego" is synonymous with "James". See for example Diego at Wikipedia; it does not mention "James". See also this. The usual translation given for "San Diego" is "Saint Didacus".[3] --MelanieN (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Top Employers in San Diego

Scripps Healthcare should be among San Diego's top employers at well over 13,000 employees. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.124.48 (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of San Diego

What is missing from the city timeline? Please add relevant content. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Origin of the name San Diego

pasted from the talk page of Paul venter

Hello! Yes, I know that you believe San Diego is named for Santiago or Saint James. But it isn't. I just added an "etymology" section to the article, with a scholarly reference that clearly shows the area was named San Diego after Saint Didacus of Alcala (better known as San Diego). The still-exiting mission in San Diego is also called San Diego de Alcala (not Santiago de Compostello or any other variant of Santiago). Thanks for caring about San Diego, but we have to go with what the references say - not what some people believe. --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Even if "Didacus" is a Latinized form of "Diego", which it probably is, the "Diego" or James that the city was named for was not James the Apostle, the patron saint of Spain. San Diego de Alcala was a 15th-century monk. --MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi - that is not a compelling argument. Your scholarly reference has many 'scholarly' sources disagree with him - for one see http://www.behindthename.com/name/diego. Perhaps you might also read Santiago (name) and Diego. Failing to mention 'Santiago' in the etymology section and linking 'San Diego' directly with 'Saint Didacus' is blatantly ignoring dissident views and is a philological travesty. Paul venter (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The website behindthename.com is not a scholarly source. To find the scholars writing about the city of San Diego, one would want to hit the books discussing the history of Spanish exploration of California.

• Page 113 of From Aztec to High Tech by Professor Lawrence A. Herzog.
• Page 1 of San Diego de Alcalá, an introduction by Thomas E. Case.
• Page 333 of Historic Spots in California by Mildred Hoover et al.
• Page 25 of San Diego in the 1930s by the Federal WPA Project.
• Page 21 of The March of Portolá and the Discovery of the Bay of San Francisco by Zoeth Skinner Eldredge, Juan Manuel de Ayala.

All of these books describe a sequence wherein the place was named by merchant explorer Sebastian Vizcaino. One of Vizcaino's ships was named San Diego, in honor of Saint Diego of Alcala. Vizcaino's expedition pulled into the Bay on November 10, 1602. The placename of the San Diego Bay was established by Vizcaino on November 12, the feast day of San Diego de Alcala. Nothing here about Santiago. Zero. So the article should not say anything at all about Santiago. It would be undue weight to mention anything at all about Santiago, since this version is so provably wrong, and not supported by reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is Paul Venter's argument which is uncompelling. The article regarding Santiago is completely unsourced. The article on Diego references the only other reference you mention, so your entire argument boils down to a single reference, (which is from an unreliable source, since it amounts to nothing more than the blog of a guy interested in etymology). While his sources are good, there is no editorial oversight of the information on his page.

Having said that, even his definition of Santiago says, "Possibly a shortened form of SANTIAGO. In medieval records Diego was Latinized as Didacus, and it has been suggested that it in fact derives from Greek διδαχη (didache) "teaching". Saint Didacus (or Diego) was a 15th-century Franciscan brother based in Alcalá, Spain." This says NOTHING to your point that San Diego's name was derived from Santiago. Rather, it makes a strong case for San Diego's name coming from St. Didacus. Binksternet's analysis is spot on. Onel5969 (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

And even if we accept the argument that Didacus is a latinized version of Diego, and that San Diego = Santiago = Saint James, this is NOT THE SAME JAMES as the one who is the patron saint of Spain and Portugal. That is Saint James the Apostle, a first-century disciple of Jesus. The name of San Diego, and of the San Diego mission to this day, adds "de Alcala". San Diego de Alcala was not James the apostle, he was a different James - a 15th century monk. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. to User:Paul venter, perhaps YOU should read "Santiago (name)", where it says "Despite being a cognate, San Diego does not refer to Saint Jacob but to Saint Didacus of Alcalá." Or perhaps you should read "Diego" which says nothing at all about the origin of the name San Diego or about these various saints. Sorry, I don't mean to be piling on; you absolutely did the right thing in bringing the discussion to this talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Another P.S.: Looking at your link "behindthename.com", I notice that it only says that Diego is "possibly" linked to Santiago. And when I see that it lists the pronunciation as "PRONOUNCED: DYE-go" I have to wonder about the accuracy of anything the guy says. Diego is a three-syllable name, "Dee- AY-go." --MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I was wrong and am suitably chastened....... Paul venter (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for being gracious. And don't feel bad, it happens to all of us. As the saying goes, our problem isn't the things we don't know; it's the things we do know that ain't so. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2015

5. Culture

 1. Nightlife

San Diego has a thriving nightlife throughout various neighborhoods, including Gaslamp Quarter in downtown, and Little Italy, which can be found a couple of miles north of from the Gaslamp Quarter. North Park is a great place to visit on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights, going there you will most likely find a clash of local young professionals, artisans, and generally people looking for a good time among a diverse and exciting social environment. An wide arrangement of bars and restaurants allows for diverse accommodations to even attract middle-aged couples to visit any one of their trendy, delicious and busy restaurants at night. South Park's nightlife is sparse, which creates for a very dim-lit, intimate and romantic atmosphere for those who want a change of pace, and the beautiful thing is that it's nestled in right between Downtown and North Park. Travel directly west from North Park, or north from Downtown and you can find Hillcrest, which is home to San Diego's LGBT community, and a great place to visit for dinner or drinks. The atmosphere is very upbeat and with enough lights to keep the walks lively when moving to and from different establishments.

Travelingscholar (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Text is written too much like a travel guide. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 21:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2015

Transportation The transportation system in San Diego is inefficient compared to other major cities in the United States. The city only has 2 main type of public transportation: trolley and buses. The trolley is limited to only the three major areas in the city: downtown. mission valley, and El Cajon City. Besides these three areas, other highly populated area such as: Mira Mesa, La Jolla, or Claremont to name a few, does not have a quick route to reach areas such as downtown and mission valley. The city attempts to solve the issue with the "Rapid" buses, which pick up riders from parts where the trolley can not reach. However, the Rapid program is only available for certain areas such as Poway and Rancho Bernardo. Until the public transport system improves, the best method of travel in San Diego is by personal car. GreenPistols (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 21:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Economy - Startups

San Diego is increasing as robust startup community. In 2014, Forbes named San Diego as the #1 place to launch a startup based on more than one million data sets that measured the following:

1. Small businesses as a percentage of total businesses.

2. Percentage of small businesses that accept credit cards.

3. Percentage of small businesses in high growth industries.

4. Percentage of small businesses with Facebook pages and websites.

5. Percentage of businesses with online reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdow.sd (talk • contribs) 22:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about this. Thanks for the suggestion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on San Diego. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071025155936/http://www.corpuschristidaily.com/article_detail_new.cfm?id=1353 to http://www.corpuschristidaily.com/article_detail_new.cfm?id=1353
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130724024941/http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/188738547.html to http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/188738547.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110727002955/http://www.sdbj.com/news/2010/jan/11/kyocera-international-get-new-leader/ to http://www.sdbj.com/news/2010/jan/11/kyocera-international-get-new-leader/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101001195003/http://www.americanrugbynews.com:80/artman/publish/rugby_league/RL_Hopes_To_Move_West.shtml to http://www.americanrugbynews.com/artman/publish/rugby_league/RL_Hopes_To_Move_West.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080316044036/http://www.fjfao.gov.cn:80/index/noDateCategory?id=51 to http://www.fjfao.gov.cn/index/noDateCategory?id=51
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071011111033/http://um.warszawa.pl/v_syrenka/new/index.php?dzial=aktualnosci&ak_id=3284&kat=11 to http://um.warszawa.pl/v_syrenka/new/index.php?dzial=aktualnosci&ak_id=3284&kat=11

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

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
• https://web.archive.org/20071025155936/http://www.corpuschristidaily.com/article_detail_new.cfm?id=1353 to http://www.corpuschristidaily.com/article_detail_new.cfm?id=1353
• https://web.archive.org/20101001195003/http://www.americanrugbynews.com:80/artman/publish/rugby_league/RL_Hopes_To_Move_West.shtml to http://www.americanrugbynews.com/artman/publish/rugby_league/RL_Hopes_To_Move_West.shtml
• https://web.archive.org/20080316044036/http://www.fjfao.gov.cn:80/index/noDateCategory?id=51 to http://www.fjfao.gov.cn/index/noDateCategory?id=51

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
• https://web.archive.org/20130724024941/http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/188738547.html to http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/188738547.html
• https://web.archive.org/20110727002955/http://www.sdbj.com/news/2010/jan/11/kyocera-international-get-new-leader/ to http://www.sdbj.com/news/2010/jan/11/kyocera-international-get-new-leader/
• https://web.archive.org/20071011111033/http://um.warszawa.pl/v_syrenka/new/index.php?dzial=aktualnosci&ak_id=3284&kat=11 to http://um.warszawa.pl/v_syrenka/new/index.php?dzial=aktualnosci&ak_id=3284&kat=11

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Birthplace of California

The statement, "San Diego is the birthplace of California" does not make sense.98.210.246.205 (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Platt College, San Diego

Please add Platt College, San Diego to your list of Colleges.

www.platt.edu

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chumbakarumba (talk • contribs) 01:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done - I've added it. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5