Jump to content

Talk:San Jose, California/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Demographics

The following statement is under demographics: "San José is considered more secular in terms of religious belief and it may explain why San José has had a large active gay and lesbian lifestyle community for over two decades, mostly centered in the downtown sections."

As far as I see it there are four problems with it, and all should be addressed: 1. Why is it under demographics, I guess it somewhat makes sense but is there a better place for this? 2. According to who/what is "San José is considered more secular in terms of religious belief"? 3. According to who/what has "San José has had a large active gay and lesbian lifestyle community for over two decades, mostly centered in the downtown sections." 4. According to who/what is it that the statement in 2 "may explain" the statement in 3. Is this just common knowledge I'm missing here does a being considered secular lead to having gays and lesbians have an "active gay and lesbian lifestyle community"?

I hope that answers to these questions can be brought forward, or at least if not, a valid justification as to why we should keep the statement there. --JVittes 01:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed population estimates

To see my reasoning for another article, please see Talk:San Diego, California#Repeated boosterism. The reasoning is the same although the numbers are different. Thank you. Ufwuct 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Required talk page post for dubious tag

Please see my diff. Thanks. Ufwuct 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with your position. That outlandish claim needs to be sourced or it must go.--Coolcaesar 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Neighborhood list

The neighborhood list seems to lack Northside. http://www.northside-sj.org/ 67.169.162.85 06:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Population

The population numbers have been changed to reflect a population of more than 1 million people, but I have failed in finding any reliable source to back uip these changes, if anybody can help find it, then that would be great, (the user also changed SF's population to ~812k if that helps). Otherwise I will have no choice but to revert to the 2005 numbers listed before. --JVittes 17:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

912,332[1]. Thanks for reverting, but I'm not sure where you got the 953,679 figure from. Ufwuct 18:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see this talk page entry until after I made my changes to the table. The reference for metro population doesn't match what's in the table. I think we should revert to the 2005 number there at least, unless someone has a reference for the larger number. Re the city population, it seems to me that the more recent US DOF estimate is more likely to be accurate today than the older census number, but it's ok with me if the consensus is to stick with census data. --Steve Pucci | talk 15:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, it's the CA DOF, not the US DOF. Well, I still think it's a better source, but like I say, I'll go with the consensus. --Steve Pucci | talk 15:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

San Jose is one of Americas Fattest cities?

I found this website claiming that san jose is one of americas fattest cities and not sure if it should be included in here and where if so. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070209/ap_on_he_me/fittest_city

I actually found that San Jose is one of the more fitter cities. The link you provided was outdated, and I found this [2] website. It is ranked 17th as fittest city. --Angelstarstar (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

FMC History?

From my memory and the internet articles I could find, the Bean Spray Pump Company (forerunner to FMC) was founded in 1884, not 1883, and was actually founded in Los Gatos, moving to San Jose in 1903. If no one can contradict or provide any more information, I will edit that section and provide the appropriate references: http://engines.rustyiron.com/stable/sprayer.html http://www.fmctechnologies.com/History.aspx Dtcomposer 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just caught some more vandalism

On 27 December 2006, 63.3.14.1 inserted some subtle vandalism into the lead regarding the use of "L.A. North" as an alternative nickname for San Jose (which, frankly, is preposterous and false as any lifelong California resident knows). No one noticed this vandalism until I finally detected it this afternoon and deleted it.

If we get hit with another wave of vandalism, this article may require indefinite semi-protection. --Coolcaesar 01:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

population table

If anyone has more time than me, the demographics section is lacking a population by year table like that found in the Los Angeles and Chicago articles. The information is available here.--Loodog 16:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

'Media' section

The Media section contains sprawling lists (Television and Radios sub-sections) that do not belong to the main article. Either create a separate list and/or rewrite this section. I'd put the {{Listtable}} tag there, but since it's a featured article, I want to discuss it first.--Svetovid 11:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


I don't know how to edit this but I think something should be added about Hyphy music, or at least mention that San Jose is part of "The Yay Area."69.181.94.42 04:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

History section History section History section History section History section

The history section is painfully too long and need to be split into its own article. Its length is seriously detracting from the article.--Loodog 03:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


There is nothing in the historical record to substantiate a claim that the English visited the San Jose area prior to the Spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.121.86.161 (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article Review coming up

I am going to nominate this article for a review. This article is nowhere near featured article quality. Not enough references; refs aren't correctly formatted; there are entire sections that are lists; there is no media section; generally, the article would fail such a review as it is right now. Unless someone has a very good reason not to review this article, it needs to be demoted. Okiefromokla•talk 01:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I second your motion. See my above history section comment.--Loodog 01:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated it.--Loodog 02:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

'Crime' section

The crime section says San Jose has the worst crime in the US but when I check the sources they say San Jose is the safest big city. Did someone vandalize the crime page?

Yes. I undid the vandalism. San Jose is in fact ranked as the US's safest big city.

Well, i recently heard that some other city kicked it off of the top, so i wouldnt be too sure.

As i live in San Jose, i Definitely understand it being up there though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.103.90 (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Greghe 01:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Population, again

I have switched the population in the infobox back to the official US Census estimate. It is lower than the preceeding figure by a nontrivial amount. As has been stated above (multiple times), US city articles should be using US Census data for population estimates and figures for the sake of consistency. As has been pointed out, local agencies such as the California department of finance are prone to making overly optimistic estimates regarding city populations, and using these figures when the majority of US city articles use the census data is creating a misleading impression about the size of these cities. Arkyan • (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree with using a consistent source across all articles; I don't necessary believe that the Census Bureau's estimates are better, worse, or more or less biased than state or local agencies. A quick dive into the archives shows the Census Bureau estimates for cities like San Jose, San Francisco, and Long Beach during the mid to late 1990s were well under:
City 1996 Census Bureau Est. 1997 Census Bureau Est. 1998 Census Bureau Est. 1999 Census Bureau Est. 2000 Official Census
San Jose 836,136 851,528 862,637 867,675 894,943
San Francisco 735,228 740,993 745,756 746,777 776,733
Long Beach 425,639 427,941 431,263 435,027 461,522
Notice how the cities' populations all jumped by 25,000 to 30,000 from the 1999 estimate to the 2000 Census. Even with the dot-com boom (which would have affected SF and SJ, but not this much, and wouldn't have affected LB by nearly this much), this shows that the Census Bureau was under-estimating through the 1990s. Unless the Census Bureau's methodology has changed, there's no reason to think they're not under-estimating now as well.
So, not to say that the State Dept. of Finance is going to be any more accurate, or that we shouldn't be using a consistent source from article to article, but remember that the Census Bureau estimates are just that - estimates, and have been proven to be less than accurate in the past. Dtcomposer 19:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
US Census estimates are notoriously conservative and they have been for some time - I believe this is intentional. I did not mean to imply that they were especially accurate - my whole point was simply about being consistent. Arkyan • (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Creation of an article about the US Market Access Center

I'm proposing the creation of an article about the US Market Access Center, an incubator in Downtown San Jose. As it is one of the four incubators started as part of the Incubator Program of the San Jose Redevelopment Agency, I believe that it is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia (as is the San Jose Redevelopment Agency itself, but that is a different discussion). I should disclose my COI on the matter, however, as I am currently an employee of the US MAC. MasterCKO (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"highest median income"

This statement in the article was called into question...

In 2000, San Jose residents had the highest median household income of any city with a population over 300,000, and currently has the highest median income of any city with over 225,000 people.

An anonymous editor added a "dubious" tag and this remark in the article text.

The 2006 American Community Survey taken by the U.S. Census Bureau clearly shows (in table B19013 - Median Household income) that San Jose does not, by far, have the highest median income.

The kind of text which should go in the article should be something which reads like an encyclopedia and flows like a single body of text. I removed the comment because it's what Wikipedians call "unencyclopedic". The article text is not the place to have a debate over content. However, I brought the remark here to the talk page where discussion should take place. I don't know who added the figure in the first place. But now it has been called into question. Let's find the proper references and, as necessary, update the figure in the article text. For references, URLs do the most good because other editors can quickly verify them. Ikluft (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The table referenced above can be found at: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/users_guide/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.185.100 (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Landmarks

Any ideas on how to write up the landmarks section without it being a big, huge, ugly list? >> Atsuke (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Why the Unref tag

Anyone know why the Unref tag is on this article? This article seems very well referenced, actually. Some sections may need assistance, but that doesn't justify the tag being attached to the whole article. Thoughts? --Fcsuper (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The references have improved since that time. The article history says there were 42 references when the refimprove tag was added in Aug 2007, and over 20 have been added since then. Obviously WP would always like more references. There are multiple ref's in nearly every section. Sections that don't have refs still have a lot of wiki and web links. There are fact templates where refs are specifically requested. So I think you're right to question why it's on the whole article. When you see something like this, you don't need to ask permission. WP culture suggests you should be bold and just fix it - post an explanation on the talk page for obvious questions you can foresee. Ikluft (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Doing as I suggested, I removed the tag. Ikluft (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The references still need to be wikified using the citation templates and such. Hopefully i'll have the time to help do that in the future, my wrist hella hurts right now. Anon134 (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

San José

Wouldn't it be better to use the San José with an accented e? --Duncan (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The city's official name is spelled without the diacritic mark (accent). Official city correspondence sometimes includes the accent and sometimes omits it; their website is unfortunately not very consistent one way or another. It is best to default to the official city name (and in this case, the most common usage) and continue spelling it San Jose without the diacritic. Shereth 16:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the city's official name includes the accented e. Officially the accent is used whenever the name is written NOT in all caps. Check out the city's website for examples. This would be a huge change to the article and I hesitate to make it because I am inexperienced, but if anyone else would like to undertake it, I for one would appreciate it. Beckerbuns (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You can save yourself the work. It's acceptable to leave it without the accent. The point is not controversial that San Jose without the accent is the common usage outside the city government. It's a tip of the hat to the historic origin but not a requirement. Ikluft (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, sounds good to me. The frustrating thing for me is looking at this article and seeing the accent in some instances and not in others. It would just be nice to see some consistency. Maybe that's the copy editor in me.  :) 75.17.119.5 (talk)
Sorry, that was me. Beckerbuns (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC).
I have changed changed San José to San Jose in references to the city or to organizations that spell it without the accent. I have changed the name to San José, as needed, when referring to organizations or entities that spell it with the accent. So, apart from anything I may have missed, we are now consistent, even though it might not appear that way at first glance. Peter Chastain (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

2010 Census Updates

Since 2010 Census is coming up, I propose we update the population and delete any old populations/estimates from post-2000 and pre-2010.

--Jmumman (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we should revise the 2009 estimates as soon as the census data comes out. >>Atsuke (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
{{CB-support}} As soon as the census data is available. But the 2010 census data collection is only in progress right now. It'll be a while before it's processed and published. Don't hold your breath. Ikluft (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Nicknames

On San Jose's article it says that San Jose's nickname is S.J. Some people I know call San Jose "San Jo" and on the San Jose Mecury News it says San Jose/Valley. So shouldn't we add San Jo to San Jose's nicknames? I'm not sure about calling San Jose "The Valley," but I just want to know if the SJ Merc is refering to San Jose or the Silicon Valley. Also if SJ Merc is refering to SJ can we add "The Valley" to San Jose's nicknames? -Jmumman (talk)

I guess that's okay but I find it a bit low-class, especially since some editors are trying to regain the article's feature status. I try to avoid it in real speech, but if you insist, I have no objections. 'The valley' seems more appropriate... Just my opinion. >>Atsuke (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What happened i added San Jo as a nickname and they took it off? why? -from johnnyfuentes91 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyfuentes91 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

San Jose Flag and Seal

Are there any images that can be added for the Flag and Seal in infobox for this article? Sanjosecalifornia (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried finding them, but high resolution (HR) images are non-existent; I have emailed the city requesting for the seals. Also, if one takes careful notice, the seals of the flag and the official seal itself are actually quite different, though are very similar if seen from far away. The HR images I found in google seem to be privately made, and do not match that of the city.
>>Atsuke (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Done! But not of high quality. Apparently I got an email back from the city saying that they reserve high quality pictures for city-sponsored events. I guess I can push for it but since someone posted it up already, it doesn't look half-bad. >>Atsuke (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC).

One milion population

I have noticed that for long time a group of editors persistently reverting information about an important milestone in growth of San Jose. This info was attempted to add by numerous editors. It was either revered without notice or with ridiculous edit comments, without bothering to discuss the issue in talk page despite requests. I find this situation against spirit and laws of wikipedia. I cannot believe that someone declares information from Cal Dept of Finance and other sources as unreliable. Aren't you guys jumping way over your head here? This is an important piece of news, notable enough to be included in the article.

Unless you stop knee-jerk reverting and start talking, I will request sanctions against what looks like a feat of WP:OWN and disrespect towards numerous other good-faith editors. Xuz (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:USCITY states specifically US Census numbers only. Local agencies invariably overestimate populations and do so by amounts which are not consistent in methodology with other local estimates around the country. There's only one agency that has estimated all 259 U.S. cities, and it's NOT the California Department of Finance, who has a budget to balance on those numbers.--Loodog (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
USCITY is a guideline. It talks about WP:LEAD. YOu are deleting info from everywhere, and without discussion. This is unacceptable. While I disagree with your logic, I may agree the text may be removed from the intro, for consistency of comparison, but whatever you may think about any governmental institutions and about US President, this gives you no right to completely censor the reports from them. Xuz (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, for the glib nature of the reversion, but this has been discussed in the past, and has been resolved similarly on Los Angeles, and so I assumed you had read. WP:USCITY represents a guideline agreed upon by the overwhelming consensus of editors. I'm not sure what you mean about "everywhere", you may be mistaking me for someone else. I merely reverted the inclusion of population data which consensus has been not to include.--Loodog (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Once again, read my previous answer carefully: you all (not personally you, but "you watchdogs of this page") are reading from WP:USCITY more than it says: it restricts the intro section only. Will you care to re-read the guideline yourself or shall I cut and paste a piece from it here? Xuz (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The current revision appears to be in line with the USCITY guideline and it is perfectly reasonable to let it stand. Perhaps a slight wording change to reinforce the fact that these numbers are supplemental to the Census figures - but it's ok as it is to include the alternative figure where it is. The snarky comeback really isn't required, however. Shereth 18:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
What is really required is some respect to other unsuspecting editors. When a dozen of different editors try to add some piece of info, isn't it a hint it is time to have some statement in talk page, rather than immediate reverts? Xuz (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Relax. Loodog is one of the few wikipedians who takes the time to do the rather thankless job of trying to make sure that the statistical information in various US City articles is both up to date and accurate, hence his repeated involvement here. A little discussion here is all that is required; there is no need to start making insinuations one way or another. The point has been made, and if the emerging comments are any indicator, it has been accepted. Shereth 18:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion:
I have read WP:USCITY and the related discussions on the talk-page. I note two relevant points;
First: WP:CITY is a guideline which is not binding upon editors of city articles. The first criteria should be consensus amongst editors on this article with appeal to WP:USCITY used to inform discussion to that end.
Second: Whilst the lead of US:CITY does specifically state "US Census numbers only" this is in conflict with the body of the article (which should take priority over the lead). Under Wikipedia:USCITY#Demographics the article reads

The US Census should be the primary source of demographic data. If census estimates or other reliable sources of demographic data are included, the additional data should supplement -- not replace -- the most recent available data from the decennial census." (Italics in original).

(I have noted this conflict on the article talk page).
Reference to this discussion on the WP:USCITY talk page indicates that the article body was changed specifically to allow inclusion of local agency data.
This same discussion makes clear that among the concerns of editors was to allow the inclusion of updated data - the suggestion being made that non-census data may (stress "may") be more accurate than census data.
Given that the CA Dept. Fin. data post-dates the census by a considerable period (2009 vs 2000/07) then in the absence of any strong reason to reject these figures as unreliable I see no valid argument for omission from the body of the article (I note that nobody is arguing for inclusion in the lead). WP:USCITY certainly cannot be cited in support of omission from the body of the article, but does support omission from the lead.
I hope this helps you in reaching a consensus and in the improvement of your article.
Please advise me via my talk-page if you require any clarification and I will be happy to add further comment.
Regards, -- Muzhogg (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone, but my objections to inclusion of this estimate in the body, if immediately juxtaposed to a Census estimate, are not terribly strong. However, I am concerned for the source. It is in the interests of the Dept. of Finance, who balances a budget dependent on these statistics, to overestimate, even if they have no pretensions of local pride. These are working numbers the Dept. of Finance used in their budget, as opposed to numbers officially put out by an agency explicitly charged with the responsibility of determining them, which fortuitously enough has also made figures easily available for every city in the whole country.--Loodog (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

so your attitude is because I personally don't believe it to hell with everyone else? There is no reason NOT to include both number and let the reader decide for themselves. Historically the census has under-estimated the actual counts of people, so by your logic, we shouldn't use those numbers either. People like Loodog with their non compromise attitudes are what make Wikipedia not credible as a source. Just list both numbers and reference them and the reader can decide.

99.26.91.2 (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)mabel

I'm simply reporting my the consensus and arguments for it, made through rigorous amounts of discussion at WP:USCITY. Consensus is broadly based on arguments for: (1) consistency, (2) neutrality, and (3) accuracy. Additionally, particularly in this case and California, there's another reason: these are numbers used by the California Department of Finance to balance the budget. Given the state of California's fiscal health, their numbers might have been a tad overgenerous.
You are welcome to go there and make the case for an alternative convention if you disagree.--Louiedog (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I propose a compromise. We put the California Finance Department's population estimate as well as the official US Census one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.122.234 (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Library

Just made a quick update to the library section. The Santa Teresa branch is open now, but there are still 4 other branches being renovated or built completely new. The Southeast branch has yet to break ground on construction. Thats all, enjoy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.82.84 (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Much obliged.
>>Atsuke (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

One milion population

I have noticed that for long time a group of editors persistently reverting information about an important milestone in growth of San Jose. This info was attempted to add by numerous editors. It was either revered without notice or with ridiculous edit comments, without bothering to discuss the issue in talk page despite requests. I find this situation against spirit and laws of wikipedia. I cannot believe that someone declares information from Cal Dept of Finance and other sources as unreliable. Aren't you guys jumping way over your head here? This is an important piece of news, notable enough to be included in the article.

Unless you stop knee-jerk reverting and start talking, I will request sanctions against what looks like a feat of WP:OWN and disrespect towards numerous other good-faith editors. Xuz (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:USCITY states specifically US Census numbers only. Local agencies invariably overestimate populations and do so by amounts which are not consistent in methodology with other local estimates around the country. There's only one agency that has estimated all 259 U.S. cities, and it's NOT the California Department of Finance, who has a budget to balance on those numbers.--Loodog (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
USCITY is a guideline. It talks about WP:LEAD. YOu are deleting info from everywhere, and without discussion. This is unacceptable. While I disagree with your logic, I may agree the text may be removed from the intro, for consistency of comparison, but whatever you may think about any governmental institutions and about US President, this gives you no right to completely censor the reports from them. Xuz (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, for the glib nature of the reversion, but this has been discussed in the past, and has been resolved similarly on Los Angeles, and so I assumed you had read. WP:USCITY represents a guideline agreed upon by the overwhelming consensus of editors. I'm not sure what you mean about "everywhere", you may be mistaking me for someone else. I merely reverted the inclusion of population data which consensus has been not to include.--Loodog (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Once again, read my previous answer carefully: you all (not personally you, but "you watchdogs of this page") are reading from WP:USCITY more than it says: it restricts the intro section only. Will you care to re-read the guideline yourself or shall I cut and paste a piece from it here? Xuz (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The current revision appears to be in line with the USCITY guideline and it is perfectly reasonable to let it stand. Perhaps a slight wording change to reinforce the fact that these numbers are supplemental to the Census figures - but it's ok as it is to include the alternative figure where it is. The snarky comeback really isn't required, however. Shereth 18:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
What is really required is some respect to other unsuspecting editors. When a dozen of different editors try to add some piece of info, isn't it a hint it is time to have some statement in talk page, rather than immediate reverts? Xuz (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Relax. Loodog is one of the few wikipedians who takes the time to do the rather thankless job of trying to make sure that the statistical information in various US City articles is both up to date and accurate, hence his repeated involvement here. A little discussion here is all that is required; there is no need to start making insinuations one way or another. The point has been made, and if the emerging comments are any indicator, it has been accepted. Shereth 18:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion:
I have read WP:USCITY and the related discussions on the talk-page. I note two relevant points;
First: WP:CITY is a guideline which is not binding upon editors of city articles. The first criteria should be consensus amongst editors on this article with appeal to WP:USCITY used to inform discussion to that end.
Second: Whilst the lead of US:CITY does specifically state "US Census numbers only" this is in conflict with the body of the article (which should take priority over the lead). Under Wikipedia:USCITY#Demographics the article reads

The US Census should be the primary source of demographic data. If census estimates or other reliable sources of demographic data are included, the additional data should supplement -- not replace -- the most recent available data from the decennial census." (Italics in original).

(I have noted this conflict on the article talk page).
Reference to this discussion on the WP:USCITY talk page indicates that the article body was changed specifically to allow inclusion of local agency data.
This same discussion makes clear that among the concerns of editors was to allow the inclusion of updated data - the suggestion being made that non-census data may (stress "may") be more accurate than census data.
Given that the CA Dept. Fin. data post-dates the census by a considerable period (2009 vs 2000/07) then in the absence of any strong reason to reject these figures as unreliable I see no valid argument for omission from the body of the article (I note that nobody is arguing for inclusion in the lead). WP:USCITY certainly cannot be cited in support of omission from the body of the article, but does support omission from the lead.
I hope this helps you in reaching a consensus and in the improvement of your article.
Please advise me via my talk-page if you require any clarification and I will be happy to add further comment.
Regards, -- Muzhogg (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone, but my objections to inclusion of this estimate in the body, if immediately juxtaposed to a Census estimate, are not terribly strong. However, I am concerned for the source. It is in the interests of the Dept. of Finance, who balances a budget dependent on these statistics, to overestimate, even if they have no pretensions of local pride. These are working numbers the Dept. of Finance used in their budget, as opposed to numbers officially put out by an agency explicitly charged with the responsibility of determining them, which fortuitously enough has also made figures easily available for every city in the whole country.--Loodog (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

so your attitude is because I personally don't believe it to hell with everyone else? There is no reason NOT to include both number and let the reader decide for themselves. Historically the census has under-estimated the actual counts of people, so by your logic, we shouldn't use those numbers either. People like Loodog with their non compromise attitudes are what make Wikipedia not credible as a source. Just list both numbers and reference them and the reader can decide.

99.26.91.2 (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)mabel

I'm simply reporting my the consensus and arguments for it, made through rigorous amounts of discussion at WP:USCITY. Consensus is broadly based on arguments for: (1) consistency, (2) neutrality, and (3) accuracy. Additionally, particularly in this case and California, there's another reason: these are numbers used by the California Department of Finance to balance the budget. Given the state of California's fiscal health, their numbers might have been a tad overgenerous.
You are welcome to go there and make the case for an alternative convention if you disagree.--Louiedog (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I propose a compromise. We put the California Finance Department's population estimate as well as the official US Census one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.122.234 (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Library

Just made a quick update to the library section. The Santa Teresa branch is open now, but there are still 4 other branches being renovated or built completely new. The Southeast branch has yet to break ground on construction. Thats all, enjoy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.82.84 (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Much obliged.
>>Atsuke (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Info Box Image

I was thinking that, though as fantastic as the city's infobox is, it represents too much of downtown San Jose and too little of the city itself. I plan to replace some of these images with icons of the city (i.e. Santana Row, Hamilton Observatory, etc.) and was wondering if anyone has any good ideas of what should be in there other than the ones I've listed.

Thanks! >>Atsuke (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd vote for images that actually show the character of the city rather than mere landmarks: West San Carlos neon signs, aging strip malls on the South or East sides, perspective shots of tract suburban housing. There's potentially a good history shot or two in Alviso, especially if you need something from North. --NickGlasowiski (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
There should be plenty of ideas at List of attractions in Silicon Valley. Ikluft (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
(Proposal) Shall we vote the top 5 or 6 pictures to add onto the new infobox? I definitely agree about adding one picture of the suburbs, as the suburban development in the 60's pushed San Jose into becoming a major city of the West. How's this picture? It's quite picturesque if you ask me. ;) >>Atsuke (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thumbs Up, looks very good. --Jmumman (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thumbs Down, That image is too new. That would be 1990's development, outside of the time range you just specified in the goal. I didn't find anything that fits the proper era on wikimedia, perhaps the wrong search phrases. I did find an interesting flicker series of 1960's vintage mall shots in B&W. You are looking for housing construction styles more like this. Seriously, I spent a almost an hour searching images and found nothing appropriate. I may ultimately have to find and upload one of my own images. With a million tech-savy people in the area, I'd think somebody could take such a picture out their bedroom window, but it might be several months before I get back to San Jose.Trackinfo (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! But what's wrong with it being new, though? I could go out with my D5000 (lol! tech savvy) and take pictures of other suburban neighborhoods, but the problem is that I hardly can get a good view of a whole community rather than of a single suburban house. Also I feel that my proposed picture is a bit more appropriate for the infobox since not only does it show the (praised) high quality of living of suburban neighborhoods, but also shows the lack of uniqueness and architectural diversity of such neighborhoods--something the city itself has been criticized amongst residents about (i.e. "What's special about San Jose?"). ...And its vantage point features a neighborhood, and not a single house! :) Edit: Oh! Sorry! I realized the misunderstanding there. I initially meant to say we should include pictures of suburban housing in the city, a development *that* started in the '60s (on farmlands), not housing of the '60s. It's what enabled the city's population explode into becoming a major South Bay city. I apologize once again... >>Atsuke (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The article should have pictures of views of Mount Hamilton, Mount Umunhum and pictures of light rail, train, and bus stations. Also we should have more pictures of Mineta San Jose International Airport. We should also get some pictures of some 2 laned streets(like Branham Ln, Snell Ave, Santa Teresa Blvd, Aborn Rd etc). I believe very few know that San Jose has some the of most congested freeways in the country, so we should get shots of San Jose freeways in heavy traffic. --Jmumman (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

{{CB-support}} Thank you for your thoughts, Jmumman. Though the topic of the discussion is regarding the infobox, I very much agree and I will actually be delighted in doing that. >>Atsuke (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Metric System? Why not US style.

I've noticed that pretty much every thing to describe San Jose, CA is in the metric system. It says the following on San Jose's article/page; Area - City 461.5 km2 (178.2 sq mi) - Land 452.9 km2 (174.9 sq mi) - Water 8.6 km2 (3.3 sq mi) - Urban 716.53 km2 (447.83 sq mi) - Metro 6,979.4 km2 (2,694.7 sq mi) Elevation 26 m (85 ft)

Population (April 30, 2009) - City 1,006,892 (10th) - Density 2,223.21/km2 (5,758.1/sq mi) - Urban 1,819,198 (MSA 7/1/08) - Metro 7,354,555 (CSA 7/1/08)

San Jose is in the United States of America, which does not use the metric system at this time. We use the Imperial system, so shouldn't San Jose's article have metric in parathenses? Most other US cities have metric in parathenses, so why not San Jose?

--Jmumman (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

{{CB-support}} I'm all for it. It's better to be consistent. >>Atsuke (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

True that. Since we don't use the metric system in the U.S., it should be in parathenses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.8.34.199 (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Main picture change

Can we please get San Jose skyline picture changed? I just don't like the first picture on the article. It makes San Jose's downtown buildings look smaller than they really are. I'd really appreciate if someone took another picture of downtown San Jose's buildings(skyline), and replaced the first picture on the article w/ that one. --Jmumman (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the skyline image shows downtown San Jose's main downtown core buildings very small. May I suggest a professional photographer take an image from Interstate 280 looking towards downtown, as it shows San Jose's skyline with plenty of full grown palm trees which give San Jose's California style to it. Sanjosecalifornia (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done that, but the problem is that it only shows part of the skyline and not the entire one. The reason for this is that 280 is REALLY close to the downtown area, so a wide angle lens is needed (those "fish-eyed" types). (1st pic|2nd pic) Please note that the images are copyrighted (hosted by facebook, hence the small resolution) and are not meant to be used publicly until I release them under a license. :) >>Atsuke (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Update So I was playing with photoshop and--yes, I know I shouldn't be posting my pictures like this--came up with this. It was cloudy that day, which is a bummer. >>Atsuke (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


(Suggestion) If anyone can get onto Northbound 880 right below the airport (but a little west of it, where there is a clearing of bushes) with a zoom lens DSLR, there is a fantastic view of the skyline, and all of it. Make sure to go on a sunny day. ;) >>Atsuke (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Another Suggestion On the Taylor Street Bridge, (the bridge that connects W Taylor Street & 87) has a view of the skyline and is open to pedestrians --Jmumman (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh goodness, that's beautiful. I looked with Google Street View and I'll try to get down there for a shot. Covers about 95% of the skyline, with some buildings like the city hall being cut off from street poles and bushes, though. >>Atsuke (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I like the new idea. Now we just have get a pro. --Jmumman (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Just reading through the article, there are several places where the text refers to photos (or the map) that is nowhere near that section of the text. In the case of the lede to }Arts and architecture" I can't tell which photo the text is referring to . . . the Fedex plane? Point being, the placement of the photos, or text directing readers to look all over the page, should be coordinated. Trackinfo (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Refrences.

can I add The Ugly Truth film as a refrence? In the movie it says that Mike Chadway (male protagonist) is from San Jose State University. Its not much but I want to add it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyfuentes91 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Local law in conflict with state law?

Currently the section on local government says, "San Jose is a charter city under California law, giving it the power to enact local ordinances that may conflict with state law, within the limits provided by the charter."

Is that true? California Constitution Article 11 Section 7 seems to suggest otherwise, which says, "SEC. 7. A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.", where, to my best understanding, "general laws" means state-level laws including statutes and the constitution. The page at the cited link doesn't mention anything about conflict with state law either.

Would be great if someone could clarify this. Otherwise I'll be making the change to reflect my understanding. Thanks. TMN (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Look at Article 11, Section 5:
"SEC. 5. (a) It shall be competent in any city charter to provide that the city governed thereunder may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters and in respect to other matters they shall be subject to general laws. City charters adopted pursuant to this Constitution shall supersede any existing charter, and with respect to municipal affairs shall supersede all laws inconsistent therewith." more
Cities without charters are governed by the California Government Code and other statutes--charter cities are not, at least not "with respect to municipal affairs". The thing is, the State gets to determine what is a "municipal affair" and what is of statewide interest, so local authority is frequently preempted, even for charter cities, by explicit language in a bill. Garbage collection and disposal was always considered a municipal affair, until the State established the current permitting system in the 1970s and set a 50% recycling goal for every city in 1989. The requirements for cities to prepare plans, report to the State, and at least attempt to achieve the goals apply to all cities, charter and general law. Whenever an interest group that does not like some local regulation thinks that it can get a majority in the legislature, they will try to get preemption language into a related bill.--Hjal (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
That explains it. Thanks! TMN (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Climate: Temperature fluctuation

"Temperature fluctuations between night and day can vary as little as 10 °F (−12 °C) to 12 °F (a fluctuation range of 5.5 °C to 6.6 °C), meaning that its climate does not experience huge temperature drops or rises like some other parts of California."

I can't really tell where this piece of information is from, however as somebody who lived in San Jose for 20 years, I can say that large, not small, temperature fluctuations are characteristic of the city. Summer days will often have 30 degree or larger fluctuations between day and night. It has caught many of my friends from the midwest off guard how quickly and drastically it changes.

This just surprised me, being the opposite of my experience. It was always something that bothered me about living there (jacket and jeans cool in the morning, t-shirt and shorts heat by noon, back to jacket and jeans in the evening). No matter what I left the house wearing, I always wished I had something else later! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erenks (talk • contribs) 05:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


The climate section also incorrectly lists the average annual temperature as 73 degrees Fahrenheit. This number is inconsistent with the data in the climate chart listed below. According to the chart the average annual high temperature is 72.6 degrees and the average annual low at 52.5. To find the average annual temperature one needs to take both day time highs and night time lows into account, which would place the yearly average in the 62-63 degree range. If only the afternoon high temperature is being looked at then this needs to be made explicitly clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.18.127.38 (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

City name in citybox

The citybox lists the official name of the city as "El Pueblo de San José de Guadalupe". That may be its historic name, but it does not appear to be its current name. The city's web page calls it the "City of San José" (with the accent).[3] Most of the city web page's content, as well as most media references, call it simply San Jose (without the accent) which seems to be the consensus spelling for this article, per discussion above. Since the city webpage uses the accent I would suggest that the official name in the citybox be changed to "City of San José." But I don't see any justification for listing the historic name in the citybox as the official name --MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The accented version (San José) is an official style of the city, approved by the City Council. It is used on letterhead, in most outreach, and on the website. However, the "official" name of the City in the charter is still unaccented. "ARTICLE I, INCORPORATION AND SUCCESSION, SECTION 100. Name. The City of San Jose, in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, shall continue to be a municipal corporation under its present name of “City of San Jose.”"[4]. Almost all media references to the city use the unaccented version, as does the State of California.--Hjal (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

City navigational box

I created Template:San Jose, California (actually a built up former redirect), to highlight the major sj articles on WP. ive modelled it after some navboxes for san fran and others. I dont think its redundant, and may provide a useful way to navigate sj, sort of like a portal or outline.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I like it. However, it highlighted an error in the SJC article. "Memorial" is not part of the full name of the airport--Mineta is not dead yet. I looked at the first two refs and it isn't in either the City's site or the FAA document.--Hjal (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Companies in San Jose

The list includes KLA-Tencor.

But KLA is in Milpitas and has closed the San Jose campus... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.118.87 (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sharks-based nicknames

I removed "the Shark Tank" from the list of city nicknames. "The Shark Tank" is not a nickname for the city; it's a nickname for the San Jose Arena, when used as the home ice of the San Jose Sharks.

For now I left in place "Shark City" as a nickname, but I'm pretty dubious about this one. Is anyone familiar with this as a nickname for San Jose, in a non-hockey context? I'm pretty sure this is an addition by an overzealous Sharks fan. --Trovatore (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

After thinking about it I've gone ahead and removed "Shark City" as it seems almost impossible that this name has any currency outside of a hockey context. In its place I put the ancient American Indian name, "The Valley of Heart's Delight". --Trovatore (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Article for San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA MSA?

Okay, so I was looking through the most populous metropolitan areas in the U.S., and I noticed that San Jose's simply redirected to this very article. However, all metropolitan areas that are in the top 50 in population, except for San Jose's, each have their own unique article, and do not simply redirect to the main city of that area. So my suggestion is, instead of redirecting the San Jose metropolitan area to this article, should a new article altogether be created for it?

San Jose's metropolitan is the 31st most populous in the United States (2011), and includes the counties of Santa Clara and San Benito. All metropolitan areas in the top 50, except for San Jose's, have their own unique article. That is why I am making this suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I Wiki Edit (talk • contribs) 04:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area links to Santa Clara County, California which is a much more appropriate location, considering there is little actual separation, other than political borders, from the San Jose metropolitan area which is effectively "The Bay Area." Trackinfo (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

In view of the city of Stockton recently filing for bankruptcy, I found it interesting that the top San Jose employers are taxpayer funded. Clearly the city has become government "top heavy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.27.55 (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Include International Technological University in Colleges & University

Should International Technological University be added to this Colleges & University section on this wikipedia page? It's a private, non-profit university in Downtown San Jose. Ituhubert (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Police Brutality Photo

Someone has uploaded a photo of a what they claim is police brutality at a march through San Jose in 1969. There is no attribution for the photo, no evidence that it was taken in San Jose, no evidence that it is indeed police brutality, and the photo is strangely placed next to paragraphs talking about San Jose in the 1850s. For the lack of attribution, fact-free editorializing, and misplace meant, I am removing the photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.82.182 (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This article reads like a commercial information packet

The information needs to read more objectively. For instance this was part of the article until I changed it

"San Jose has 300+ days of sunshine"

It should instead list the average and maybe the standard deviation.

206.193.249.64 (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Portal peer review

I have submitted Portal:San Francisco Bay Area to peer review. i would welcome any comments. i believe it is fully ready for featured portal status, but i have been just about the only editor there for a while.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Levi's Stadium / 49'ers Location

Both are based in Santa Clara and mentioned several times on that Wikipedia page. I modified the Sports section on San Jose's page to clarify the actual location. However, should the references to Levi's Stadium / 49'ers be removed entirely from the San Jose page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.37.176 (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Removed since its NOT actually in San Jose. I did add a mention of the 2005-2007 Grand Prix. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

San José or San Jose??

I think that the official name is San José, because it appears in the Seal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seal_of_San_Jose,_California.png

and in the official website:

http://www.sanjoseca.gov/

Change or no change?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.42.171.183 (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Looks like it should be "San Jose" without the accent mark. The standard at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) (and WP:COMMONNAME in general) is that we use the name that is most commonly used in English. (This is not necessarily the "most English" name: for example, "jalapeño" and "piñata" are English Wikipedia article titles.) It seems to me that most people use "San Jose" without the accent mark:
    • The San Jose Mercury News doesn't use the accent. The local news web page of El Observador, a bilingual newspaper, appears to use or omit the accent mark randomly in English.
    • I haven't found any evidence of English-language TV stations using an accent on the name. TV stations with San Jose in their branding have not used the accent: see File:KNTV Logo.png, File:KSTS 1984.jpg, File:KTEH.jpg, all with a San Jose city of license. It's more difficult to tell recently, because owners don't care about their cities of license anymore, so they minimize any city name that has a more dominant city near it (e.g. "San Francisco" or "San Francisco / Oakland").
    • The Santa Clara County government website seems to consistently use "San Jose" without the accent. See, for example, "About the County".
Also, the presence on the city seal and web page text is questionable: Section San Jose, California#History mentions (unsourced) a 1979 city ordinance to direct the use of the accent mark in text and the seal, but the overriding law is Article I of the San Jose city charter] of 1965, which says "shall continue ... under its present name of “City of San Jose.”". So the city's website may be more the result of a single 1979 city council vote rather than natural common usage by normal people. --Closeapple (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • On April 3, 1979, the San José City Council adopted San José, with the diacritical mark on the "e", as the spelling of the city name on the city seal, official stationery, office titles and department names. Also, by city council convention, this spelling of San José is used when the name is stated in BOTH upper- and lower-case letters, but not when the name is stated ONLY in upper-case letters. The accent reflects the Spanish version of the name, and the dropping of accents in all-capital writing was TYPICAL in Spanish. The name is still more commonly spelled without the diacritical mark as San Jose, but I think that the official and correct name is San José. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.227.76.163 (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Whatever the name should be, it can not be moved by copy and paste. You should use the "Move" link per Wikipedia:Moving a page. Sjö (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I also agree that the article title should include the diacretic. Who are we to invalidate the decision of the City Council? HOWEVER, even if there is no consensus to do so we should amend the official_name field of the city infobox to City of San José in order to reflect the actual official name of the city. 24.19.89.134 (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral - There is already a redirect at San José, California, so the only way the page can be moved is with a formal Move Request. Since this is the English Wikipedia and likely that most Readers do not have an "é" key, it's probably fine as is, but IMO the accent should be noted/used where ever possible in the article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 20:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Change to San José - San Jose, California would redirect to the page with the accented é. If it's the official name of the city, the Wikipedia article should reflect that. I also agree with those above, that the name with the accent should be used throughout the article in reference to the city.--113.108.103.1 (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia's guidelines for article titles, common names and spellings are preferred over the official ones. As Closeapple has stated, most third party reliable sources do not use the accent. As for the city council's policy (which is still irrelevant under Wikipedia's article naming guidelines), the only Google results I get are Wikipedia mirror sites. Thus there is no verifiable proof that this is even an official name, or a non-official rule of thumb by the council, or even merely the webmasters on www.sanjoseca.gov acting on their own. As of now, the only official evidence I can verify is the city charter, and it does not use the accent. How can we use the accent whenever possible in the article when there is no evidence that it is actually official? A stylized form of the subject's title on its seal or logo does not automatically make it official if it is used differently in most other cases. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the unaccented e should be used for the great majority of this article. The accent should be used if it is quoted, or if the the text is referring to the early Spanish settlement or the city council decision. WP:COMMONNAME is only about article titles; the body of the article has no such guideline. The MOS:HAWAII guideline might provide guidance here as it describes the use of special characters; there ought to be a similar guideline for California. Binksternet (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Except that the creation of a separate MOS:HAWAII guideline was warranted because many Hawaii-related articles were under such discussion. San Jose appears to be the only California-related subject with this dispute. If there is consensus to apply some of the MOS:HAWAII guidelines here, that is fine, but there are not enough subjects to warrant creating a separate California-related MOS page at this time. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Timeline of San Jose, California

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Population

its now officially 1,015,785 by us census data [5], but i cant parse the population table, so i hope someone else can add it.(mercurywoodrose)108.94.1.98 (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It has been added in the introductory paragraph as: "The U.S. Census Bureau estimated the population of the city to be 1,015,785 as of July 1, 2014, making it the tenth U.S. city to reach a population of one million." This is technically incorrect; it is the 11th city to reach that mark as Detroit previously had over a million people (it's not even the first time the U.S. has had ten cities over a million at the same time - according to the Census Bureau, Phoenix reached the mark in 1991 and Detroit fell from the mark in 1996). That said, I'm not sure what the most efficient way to phrase this sentence would be, short of just stating the population. Dtcomposer (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Demographics Section

Hi. There is a table which cites a non-US Census page as its source at the beginning of the section. Then the same information is repeated in the first paragraph. There are a few problems. First, the numbers in the table do not jive with the numbers in the paragraph (and the numbers in the paragraph appear to be the correct ones, as per the US Census). Second, the table cites a non-US Census source, which shouldn't happen, all population numbers should be the official US Census. And third, isn't it a bit redundant to have the table, and then repeat the information in the paragraph? Onel5969 (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Global City?

The citation for San Jose being a global city is from 2008, before the economic collapse. I can't find any post-2008 citations, so unless someone can, we should remove this. BeIsKr (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind. Found a more recent reference BeIsKr (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on San Jose, California. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on San Jose, California. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Hi Salvaeditor - The consensus is that the article should be named without the accent. Please stop your disruptive editing. See the top of this talk page. Onel5969 TT me 14:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Ahh! Ok, I didn't read that, but I think that the correct name is San José, because that's how appear in the official city website and in the Seal. What's your opinion about?
Hi. Take a look at the discussion at the top of the page (and thanks for engaging in discussion). Currently, the consensus is to not use the accent. To me, the biggest aspect is that this is English Wikipedia, and English keyboards don't have the dialectic, so whenever someone types in San Jose, it's an automatic redirect. The arguments in the above discussion also point out that per other wiki guidelines, even though San Jose officially changed to include the dialectic, the vast majority of common usage does not. Frankly, I don't have an opinion, as a I see both sides of the argument. My concern with your edit(s), is that they go against consensus. That was my sole reason for reverting you. If you open another discussion, and at this time consensus changes, then I'd revert someone who tried to change it the other way. Another key thing is that you should NEVER cut and paste, but use the MOVE function, which you can't, since there is already a redirect blocking the move. Take it easy. Onel5969 TT me 14:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on San Jose, California. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on San Jose, California. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on San Jose, California. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on San Jose, California. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

RM discussion

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:San Jose International Airport#Requested move 10 July 2016, at which the city article's title, and the unilateral removal of the diacritic from it, are also under discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:San_Jose,_California/Archive_2&oldid=1137172401"