Talk:San Diego/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Smoking Ban

Culture Saying that the City Council ban on outdoor smoking at the beach and in parks is for the safety and comfort of visitors to San Diego strikes me inaccurate. I can go along with the idea that the ban promotes other people's "comfort", but their "safety"? How is somebody smoking outdoors endangering other people if the smoke isn't blowing directly in their faces, which in most cases it wouldn't be?

The earth's atmosphere extends roughly 200 miles high and surrounds the entire planet. That's a lot of area in which cigarette smoke can disperse. And I'm quite sure that the percentage of air pollution caused by cigarette smokers is negligible in comparison to pollution in San Diego caused by auto exhaust fumes!

I know that a lot of people are eager to discourage smoking, no matter what it takes, but presenting the city council's ban on outdoor smoking as something that promotes health is going overboard and does a disservice both to legitimate reasons for such a ban (I am unaware of any; even the problem of discarded cigarette butts is overstated given the unsupported presumption that all smokers are inconsiderate litterbugs and given the fact that a huge increase in noticeable littering of all kinds in the city of San Diego is not being addressed by city officials) and to the credibility of scientific pronouncements. starkt 06:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC) starkt.

Second-hand smoke carries most of the carcinogens from the original cigarette with it. If inhaled, over time, second-hand smoke can cause cancers in the mouth and lungs. So safety/health can be thought of a reason. On the issue of the atmosphere, you are right, that it is a huge area for the smoke to disperse. However, the smoke does not immediately vanish with a 'poof' but rather slowly dissipates, hanging around for some time afterwards. And frankly, as someone with asthma, cigarette smoke can cause a mild reaction. --Mechcozmo 16:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Smokers are not a "culture". This sentence is completely out of place, and reads as if San Diego can ban cultures on beaches and in public parks. This sentence should be removed from this portion of the article. Lorraine LeBeau 20:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence on the smoking ban, because once again, smokers are not a culture, and it simply did not fit in this area. Lorraine LeBeau 20:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what mechcozmo said...it lingers in the air for a bit. When its windy I unwillingly have to breathe in the polluted air of someone a ways off or when they stand outside a building right near the door or something. Also, stepping on a fresh cigarette butt on the beach would totally ruin your day. Clown57

There are separate bans. San Diego City, Solana Beach, and Del Mar have ban smoking in all beaches and parks. The county of San Diego banned smoking on all state parks. I remember on the news, the county's reasons for banning smoking on state parks was to reduce pollution and prevent forest fires. I believe it should be banned in cars (which law makers are trying to pass), on public sidewalks, public parks and beaches, and in any workplace. Smoking directly effects those who have lung related problems. One puff of second hand smoking drifting into someone’s face who has a serve lung problem is potential harmful. Not only that, but smoking invades on other's right to breath clean air. I have often had to breath in someone's smoke because it doesn't always go up in the sky, if there is any wind, it will blow on someone and make them breath in cancer causing materials. Smoking can irate people with severe eye problems if the smoke blows in their face. Disturbing the peace is against the law and cigarettes disturb many non-smokers. -ChristopherMannMcKay 16:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable Residents

What are the official criteria for being listed as a notable resident? The heading "notable residents" sounds like a candidate has to be living in San Diego at the present time to be listed, but I see that some of those listed haven't lived here in years (they're just listed because they were born or grew up here). I see the list gradually expanding and I have to wonder if I'm the only one who thinks the list is bulky and unnecessary for an encyclopedic article about the city of San Diego. I would be in favor of replacing the entire section with maybe just a brief note saying San Diego has a healthy dose of famous residents because of its proximity to Hollywood. Soltras 19:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a few articles where that heading is titled "Notable residents, past and present." Personally, I think the inclusion criteria should be either (1) current residence or (2) that person grew up there or has a strong past association (e.g., Cameron Crowe in San Diego). OhNoitsJamie^Talk 19:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, couldn't somebody just make the list of notable residents on another page and link it to the page to help keep the size of the article short and allow for any submission of notable residents on the list. That is one possible solution. Nehrams2020 22:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

These lists are a problem for every place. A few city articles use section headers like "San Diegans" or "Notable people from San Diego". "Of", "from", "residents", "Fooians" - it doesn't matter which, each one has its problems. One city just has "born in" and that is much simpler to maintain. If you want the list to quiet down then spin it off. Material in related articles, like "List of San Diegans", tends to be edited much less often than the same material in a main article. That can be a good thing. -Will Beback 07:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, I made a list of notable San Diegans and linked to it from the San Diego page (in the "See Also" section), and I removed the "Notable Residents" section from this article.

Well, it's probably a matter of opinion as to whether or not San Diego has ever had any notable residents. Many people would say no, there's never been anyone notable from San Diego at all. Other people would say no, it's a spelling error, they meant notorious, not notable. Even San Diego criminals are pretty much run-of-the-mill. I'm sure they're the ones talking about Susan Golding. So, who knows, maybe they're right and there's no notable San Diegans to list, anyway.--75.55.36.69 (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

San Diego movies

I just created Category:San Diego films (using Category:Chicago films as template). Please help me and expand this category, thanks. bbx 12:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

1885 establishments link

Does anyone know how to change this to "1850 establishments"? And also to take San Diego off that list....

Explanation for reversion

I reverted both this edit by 66.133.247.65 and this edit by 66.193.152.98 because they are unsourced attempts to inflate the population. I mean, wow, what a coincidence that when Tijuana is included, there are exactly 3,000,000 more (7 sig figs)! Baja California has less than 3 million, so Tijuana clearly doesn't have 3 million people. Plus, this is a non-standard way of considering metro areas. I believe the population of the San Diego-Tijuana area should be mentioned provided it is accurate, appropriately sourced (I think UN data would suffice), and does not appear in the infobox, but rather somewhere else in the article. Thanks. Ufwuct 16:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Repeated boosterism

On August 27, 2006, I changed the population estimate to the official U.S. Census Bureau estimate for San Diego's population on July 1, 2005.[1] The estimate that was there before of 1,305,736 came from a San Diego city planning agency (although the ref was deleted[2] by KevinJ).

Then again, on November 16, another non-U.S. Census Bureau estimate was added (1,311,162), replacing the U.S. C.B. estimate.[3] This estimate is from the Department of Finance from the state of California and claims to be a population estimate for January 1, 2006.

First, using non-U.S. C.B. estimates is inconsistent with all other U.S. city articles.

Second, local and even state goverments are prone to overestimate or even purposely inflate their population estimates. In doing so, they can make a better case for getting a larger share of federal funding and sometimes get the U.S. C.B. to revise the population estimates for that particular city (many times unsuccessfully, and almost always, the U.S. C.B. does not amend the estimate to the one the locality was claiming).

Third, these local and state agencies have primary responsibilities other than counting people (planning, budgeting, etc.) and do not specialize in counting people. The U.S. C.B.'s PRIMARY if not ONLY responsibility is accurately counting people according to location, race, sex, etc.

Fourth, these estimates appear to be flat-out wrong, that is, if we trust the U.S. Census Bureau estimates. The table below combines U.S. C.B. and local/state estimates. Decennial estimates are using given for April. Otherwise, July estimates are from the U.S. C.B. and January estimates are from state/local agencies.

Population of San Diego since 2000

Month	Year	Population	Numerical Change #	Change/year % change (simple compounding)
April	2000	1,227,641
July	2001	1,244,481	16,840	1.37
July	2002	1,253,008	8,527	0.69
July	2003	1,263,551	10,543	0.84
July	2004	1,263,816	265	0.02
January	2005	1,305,736	41,920	6.64
July	2005	1,255,540	-50,196	-7.69
January	2006	1,311,162	55,622	8.86

Without even explaining the details, it should be evident that (at least) one of these agencies is wrong. For the reasons I've already put forth, I think the local/state agencies are more likely to be wrong. Therefore, let's just trust the U.S. C.B. on these estimates and not be so impatient on getting the latest population estimate. The population estimates for each state came out in December and it shouldn't be too long before the estimates for the cities come out. Besides, Wikipedia is not a newspaper; we need to get the facts right, not just come out with the story first. Ufwuct 19:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Centre City vs downtown

Please, include the historic name "Centre City" with downtown. It's only in the last few years that real-estate boosters have been promoting the area as "Downtown". Many people use the term, obviously, but Centre City is the name. "Centre City" was even on the trolley destination signs for years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.136.15.74 (talk • contribs) .

When was that? Never heard that term and it's not on the signs? I'll ask the long term ones :) It would be nice to see a "center city" sign :) I added pictures of the trolley and coaster, and i'm going to add more pics, but i don't want to overload with pictures, so let me know what kind of picture you would like, I can do them during week-ends. Fabwash 01:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anyone who calls it "Centre City" (besides the CCDC and some local government agencies). Even the CCDC refers to it as "downtown" in some of their own documents [4]. It would be appropriate to mention the "Centre City" is sometimes used, but it makes the most sense to use the common name throughout the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ohnoitsjamie, "Centre City" is more of a marketing term than anything else. If anything, terms for the various neighborhoods ("Gaslamp Quarter," "Little Italy," etc.) are much more commonly used in the local parlance.--Lord Kinbote 06:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"Centre City" was indeed used on trolley maps for years... I always thought it was some sort of an attempt to make things seem more European-feeling, than anything else... :) No one else I know ever used the term "Centre City" when referring to Downtown (other than the CCDC), let alone spelled it that way. Etcetera 04:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've never heard the term "Centre City" used with respect to San Diego, or any American city. I don't doubt it was once used, but I don't believe it is in common usage today and I see no evidence the term is notable enough to go into the article. Johntex\^talk 01:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation Problem

The citation problem for the Economy section states that San Diego "is one of the six centers of innovation". I found nearly the exact same phrase at this site: [5]. I don't know if this was copied and pasted in at some point or even if this site is credible. Will somebody please look it over to assess if the statement should be removed or if this site should be used to provide its citation?--Nehrams2020 01:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I would personally remove the phrase since it is obviously POV. I've thought of doing this myself but I thought I would wait for somebody to come along to give proper citations to the claim. I will probably remove the phrase since the website you posted is not exactly a non-partial source.--Chicbicyclist 11:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries

There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada.

This proposal would allow for this article to be located at San Diego instead of San Diego, California, bringing articles for American cities into line with articles for cities such as Paris and Toronto.--DaveOinSF 16:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

However the proposal would allow U.S. cities to be inconsistent with the vast majority of other U.S. cities and towns, which (with a few exceptions) all use the "city, state" convention. -Will Beback 23:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Protect page?

Should this article be protected? There are constant threats of vandalism especially surrounding the "Anchorman" quote which seems to occur several times a day/week. Is this reasonable justification for protection. If so, it should be requested. --Nehrams2020 08:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have semi-protected it. Mushroom (Talk) 02:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Questionable food specialties?

Hello, there are a few food specialties listed that I think are questionable as to whether they merit inclusion:

1. Salads made from fresh, local produce (including Caesar, Greek, Mixed, and Caprese Salads)
2. Southern Italian pastas, panini, and pizzas
3. Shish kebab, shashlyk, and Gyros
4. Southeast Asian specialties of all kinds.
5. Locally produced, artisan bread

The above seem like they are not uncommon in any medium-to-big size city in the US. Yes, San Diego has fresh produce, but so do lots of other places and these salads are certainly not unique to SD. Yes, San Diego has a "Little Italy" but Italian food is ubiquitous across the US. Etc.

I think these are candidates for removal not because they are untrue (though certainly they are all uncited) but because I question whehter they are special enough for inclusion. Other thoughts? Johntex\^talk 22:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you 100% ChristopherMannMcKay 22:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Geography

I want to reorganize the article to be similar to San Francisco’s where the neighborhoods are under a geography section (because it is not demographics) with its own sub article; I also suggest adding a weather section and a beach and parks section with their own sub articles, like San Francisco article has. What does everything think about that? ChristopherMannMcKay 15:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)We should also put that San Diego is a hilly city becuase is really is.

Downtown

I think I should move the downtown section and put it under Geography and then combine Downtown and the neighborhoods list into a sub article. Any ideas? ChristopherMannMcKay 15:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleated the downtown section. Other major cities do not have an entire section about downtown. I don't believe it is necessary. I intergrated a link to downtown in the Communities and neighborhoods section. -ChristopherMannMcKay 17:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro is too long

needs to be more succinct and focus on summarising. --Spewmaster 04:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Change to San Diego - climate reassessment

Areas with a Mediterranean Climate

Hello, another user who seems to be a weather wizard (no kidding), reassessed San Diego about 180 out from what I remember it as. Could someone else check? I asked the user if he was certain and on my talkpage, he says he used the chart referenced in the change. I agree with the previous article that it is a Mediterranean climate with a CsA or CsB if you go by the chart.

I have done some research into this matter. On my talkpage, the user who made the assessment based it upon this chart, Köppen climate classification, which he said, "barely clipping the extreme southwest tip of California." San Diego has been described as having a Mediterranean climate which according to the values listed on the Köppen climate classification would be a CsA or CsB. In fact if you look at the Mediterranean climate article, it has the image I have included as a thumbnail.

San Diego Fast Facts on the city website lists the following:

• Average Temperatures

July 70 degrees

December 59 degrees

• Average Annual Precipitation

9.5 inches

US Extreme temperature records lists:

• San Diego

Low - -3.9 °C (seasonal)

High - 43.9 °C (seasonal)

All that checks with a CsA which the Mediterranean climate article states that the greater Los Angeles area (which I will include San Diego into. Ronbo76 15:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

To me, it can't be ruled out that San Diego belongs in the BSh category, at least according to the Köppen classification criteria. Looking at San Diego, California#Climate and Köppen climate classification#GROUP B: Dry (Arid and semiarid) climates, San Diego has an annual average temperature of 17.9 °C ((21.6 + 14.2)/2). 17.9 * 20 = 358. Only 12.7% of San Diego's precipitation((.75+.2+.09+.03+.09+.21)/6 = 1.37, 1.37/10.77 = .1272) falls between April and September. This is less than 30%. So, add 0 to 358 and we still have 358. The 358 mm cutoff for this climate type is greater than San Diego's average of 273.6 mm. So, it could be characterized as semi-arid warm. However, I don't see any criteria that preclude San Diego from being considered as having a Mediterranean climate. Perhaps both should be mentioned. Ufwuct 16:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the way it's climate is usually defined as. I looked for some links in the city website but could not find any. I don't think the city would like being defined as semi-arid. Ronbo76 19:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

They probably would not like that, but that issue shouldn't be the deciding one. Maybe the "semi-arid" part could be de-emphasized instead. Something like "...Mediterranean climate which technically could be classified as semi-arid (BSh) under the Köppen classification scheme." I doubt many climatologists or meteorologists would even refer to it as semi-arid; they would almost invariably call it a Mediterranean climate. Ufwuct 21:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Torrey Pines?

Under the economy section, it says "Several areas of San Diego (in particular, the La Jolla, Torrey Pines and surrounding Sorrento Valley areas) are home to offices and research facilities for biomedical corporate giants as well as those of many smaller, independent research companies and startups." Torrey Pines, to my knowledge is not an area of San Diego. I believe they are talking about La Jolla, the section by the west part of UCSD by the Torrey Pines State park on Torrey Pines road. I am going to remove Torrey Pines because it is part of La Jolla; if I am wrong, please add Torrey Pines back into the article. I am going to re-write part of the economy section and list a few of the large biotechs located in San Diego to give supporting evidence. -ChristopherMannMcKay 16:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

La Jolla, San Diego, California is a neighborhood of the city of San Diego, and Torrey Pines State Reserve is also within city limits. -Will Beback · † · 17:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

But the "home to offices and research facilities ..." is not in Torrey Pines State Reserve, which, by the way, is located in La Jolla. Having said that, Torrey Pines is used informally to describe the area of La Jolla within the vicinity of the reserve that is its namesake. One might say that "Torrey Pines" is a neighborhood of La Jolla, except "neighborhoods" are usually residential areas, and Torrey Pines is not residential. According to the current whacky community naming conventions of Wikipedia, Torrey Pines should probably have its own article at something like Torrey Pines, La Jolla, San Diego, California, United States, North America. In any case, I agree listing Torrey Pines is redundant, since it is in La Jolla. --Serge 18:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The article should use "Golden Triangle" to describe the area, as this is the accepted nomenclature for the region of San Diego County bounded by I-5, I-805, and Ca-52, and the site of prolific growth in biotech and research organizations fanning out from UCSD and its surrounding area (such as the earlier developments on Genesee Ave. and the myriad offshoots of North Torrey Pines Rd.). For verifiable proof, go to the city's website...it is referenced there quite often. Eganio 01:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea. Communities and Neighborhoods are recognized officially through the San Diego Government and SANDAG and are used in government agencies, such as the County Recorders office, Police and such. There is no mention of 'Golden Triangle' as a community, because it is used to refer to multiple communities. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 03:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You should refer to it if something like "Golden Triangle, which inclues Torrey Pines, La Jolla, UTC, and Sorrento Valley." My point is Golden Triangle is not known to the average user (not from san diego) and there is no article for Golden Triangle, so you should reference what there are articles for, like the communities. —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 03:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, you should add Torrey Pines back into the list of locations and work some text along the lines of "greater metropolitan area" into this section of the articles. CKBrown1000 05:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CKBrown1000 (talk • contribs)

One of the problems about going outside of the boundaries of an article, is that it gets confusing. There is already a San Diego County article (where the MSA points to) and a San Diego–Tijuana metropolitan area, we don't need to tack one one to any current article which is clearly limited to the geographical/political city. Student7 (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We need to get rid of irrelevant references to the San Diego–Carlsbad–San Marcos metro area. Right now, we can't because there is no article for that important metropolitan area. The pointer is to a list in a table someplace. In the table, they have a pointer to San Diego County, not quite accurate either. We want to mention that SD city is part of that and then move on to describe the city. Student7 (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

LOCATION OF BALBOA PARK

The article mentions that Balboa Park ends abruptly at Mission Valley, which isn't true. The northern-most part of Balboa Park ends in a neighborhood known as Marston Hills (think of it as southern Hillcrest.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.101.181.180 (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Balboa Park is bordered to the north by Hillcrest and North Park. Marston Hills is not a San Diego community; maybe you are thinking of Mission Hills (west of Hillcrest) or Banker's Hill (south of HIllcrest)? —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean Marston Hills. It may not be on the city website, but if you look at real estate ads, it's mentioned. It's the area bordered by Upas, Richmond, the 163, north to Cypress St. A bunch of homes built by George Marston in the 20s and 30s. I grew up there, and there were even Marston Hills block parties. Yes, when people ask where I grew up, I usually say Hillcrest, but it's more accurate to say Marston Hills. It's kind of like going into a hoity toity suburban division like RB and seeing the different names for various sections of tract homes. I'm not going to make a stink about Marston Hills not being mentioned, because it would be almost impossible to prove it exists. But in case I come upon some evidence, I'll be back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.213.132.253 (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Marston Hills" isn't a community, nor a region. It's a gimmick used by agents to make the area seem more prestigious. The borders are North Park/Hillcrest to the north, Banker's Hill to the west, Southpark to the south, and Golden Hill to the east. 72.199.173.76 (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved crime to demographics

I think it is proper to put it there, unless a "Law and Government" section is created. -ChristopherMannMcKay 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Culture:Shopping Malls?

Who else thinks the Shopping Malls section under culture should be removed? How about posting that up on wikitravel... --ChristopherMannMcKay 20:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. If anyone believes it should be back on the article, please dicuss it here; I pasted it below. I don't think it has anything to do with culture, most malls have the same stores as other U.S. cities. I think it should be taken off the page. --ChristopherMannMcKay 02:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

One interesting thing I've noticed is that visitors from out of town seem to be amazed by the number of outdoor shopping malls we have here, while us locals normally never even think about it. I suppose it's a hilight of the differences in climate, but perhaps that would be something to mention here. Etcetera 19:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Outdoor shopping is not unique to San Diego; outdoor shopping malls are also common in Florida, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and other cities in California.—Christopher Mann McKay 00:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Shopping malls

• Fashion Valley
• Mission Valley, Westfield Shoppingtown
• Horton Plaza, Westfield Shoppingtown
• College Grove
• Westfield UTC, Westfield Shoppingtown
• The Shops at Las Americas (also a U.S.-Mexico Port of Entry walkway and Duty-Free centre)
• The San Diego Factory Outlet

Intro

I am trying to make the intro shorter...

• "It is also home to some of the wealthiest enclaves in the country, including the suburbs of Cardiff by the Sea, Del Mar, Fairbanks Ranch, Rancho Santa Fe and Bonita"

• According to Forbes and CNN only Rancho Santa Fe and maybe Solona Beach are "one of the wealthiest enclaves in the country", although both of these places are outside San Diego city limits. It says "In 2004, San Diego had the fifth largest median household income of places with a population of 250,000 or more" under the demographics section. I don't think we need anything in the into. Wikipedia pages of wealthy cities do not have anything about wealth in their intros. --ChristopherMannMcKay 00:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are on the right track. Most good articles seem to have one or two high impact statements that entice the reader to read the article. Right now, this article's main introduction looks too long. It should be whittled down and incorporated into the appropriate sections. Ronbo76 01:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• "There are numerous nationally and internationally known high-tech and biotech companies in the area, such as Qualcomm, Neurocrine, Gateway, Illumina, and Genentech of Oceanside (many located in the so-called "Golden Triangle" area, west of the affluent suburb of Tierra Santa)"

• There should not be companies listed in the introduction. The introduction should be short. Companies are located in economy sention of this page. I don't think companies should be listed on this page if they are outside city limts. If someone wants to put an addition to the stub List of companies headquartered in San Diego, California listing companies nearby San Diego they should do so. I deleated "San Diego's economy centers on the military, tourism, trade, agriculture, ship-repair and construction, defense-related companies, biotechnology, computer science, electronics, real estate speculation and the many maquiladora facilities." I am going to change the sentance to "San Diego's economy is largly composed of biotechnology/biosciences, electronics manufacturing, defense and space manufacturing, financial and business services, computer software devlopment, and telecommunications." Someone can change it if they want, but don't put any companies names in it.
• Also, according to SANDAG Tierra Santa it not 'affulent'; keep in mind Tierra Santa's income might be more than the national advertage, but San Diego costs more to live than the national average. Compared to other parts of San Diego Tierra Santa is not 'affulent'. --ChristopherMannMcKay 01:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend going with the first three statements only. The only question I have is the statement about being the second largest city in California. I read the referenced article and there is no reference to that. I would think San Diego is in the top five: Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose with maybe one other city plus it. Ronbo76 01:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

San Diego is the second largest. --ChristopherMannMcKay 01:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Major tourists attractions include the city's beaches and bays, Balboa Park with its many museums, the San Diego Zoo, Sea World, San Diego Wild Animal Park and Old Town, the site of the original Spanish settlement."

I removed this beacuse it should not be in the intro. Major tourist destinations cities on wikipedia have nothing about tourism in their intros. It should be that way with San Diego. --ChristopherMannMcKay 01:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• It lies just north of the Mexican border (shares border with Tijuana, Mexico), and is a home for United States Navy, United States Coast Guard and United States Marine Corps bases, many miles of beaches, and a mild Mediterranean climate. "

• I am going to reword this passage.
• I am going to delete "Military bases in or near San Diego include U.S. Navy ports, Marine Corps bases, and Coast Guard stations. One of the two Marine Corps Recruit Depots is located in San Diego. San Diego is the site of the largest naval fleet in the world and has the largest concentration of Naval facilities in the world." beacuse the military is breifly mentioned in the first paragraph. --ChristopherMannMcKay 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• "San Diego lies just north of the Mexican border (shares border with Tijuana, Mexico), and is a home to miles...."

• Reworded to inlude south of orange county and new sentance. --ChristopherMannMcKay 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. I saw this intro yesterday for the first time in a while and it needed help. Thanks for your work in cleaning up the intro. Ufwuct 16:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

San Diego in popular culture

This section is too long, horribly written, and pointless. As other wikipedia articles show, you should only indicate the movie/book name and author. Giving details like "The film still regarded by many critics as the best of all time", "..starring Will Ferrell as Ron Burgundy. The Burgundy character is partially inspired by..", "..is home to the hit Nickelodeon show..", " Rey Mysterio represents his hometown of San Diego by calling his finishing move 619" and "San Diego is the hometown of Damon Allen" make the article look bad.

"The original novel Somewhere in Time was set in the Hotel del Coronado" I do not know how many times people write things about San Diego County on this page...

I don't think it is necessary to list everything that was partially filmed (not set) or breifly set in San Diego. However, I have saved the San Diego in popular culture section here if anyone wants to create a wikipedia page for films and television shows filmed in San Diego or briefly set in San Diego. I have created List of fiction set in San Diego.

--ChristopherMannMcKay 00:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This could be a very good point. It could be written in a seperate page, or completely re-done. --BrentAlsoPete (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Culture

"San Diego has a strong Mexican influence due to its proximity to the international border between the United States and Mexico. In addition, San Diego has other significant immigrant communities. Older immigrant groups include those from Sicily and Portugal, which settled in Little Italy and Point Loma respectively. Newer immigrants have arrived from former Soviet Republics (notably Ukraine, Russia and Trans-Caucasia), Greece, the Philippines, South East Asia, China, India, the Pacific Islands, Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Brazil, Turkey, the Horn of Africa and South Africa. "

While this is true there are also large amount of people from South Korea, Japan, Guam and others. I do not think we should list out every race that lives in San Diego, but rather if someone wants to rewrite it to say something like "San Diego has a large amount of somerace, over ??% of the population are from some country" or something like that. This also doesn't say why the diverse demographics relate to San Diego's culture, except in food. I don't really think this passage should be included unless it is reworded, so I am deleting it. -ChristopherMannMcKay 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a seperate culture article, I will try to expand on it in the next few weeks. -ChristopherMannMcKay 09:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Photo

I removed Del Mar Beach Photo because it is in a different city, Del Mar; It is not with-in city limits. -ChristopherMannMcKay 09:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Crime

I am improving the crime section.

• "In 1991 the number of murders was 167, in 2005 the number of murders was only 98". According to U.S. Department of Justice · Bureau of Justice Statistics and Ciity-data.org this is not true. I am going to remove it. -ChristopherMannMcKay 00:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Military institutions

I linked the institutions to wikipedia articles instead of external links. I also put them in order. I wanted to indicate the bases that are located outside San Diego city limits, I am not sure if it looks alright. If anyone has any suggestions for changing how to indicate the bases located outside the city please let me know or change it. -ChristopherMannMcKay 18:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How to label institutions outside city limits

There are bases that are outside of San Diego city limits listed. San Diego locals know "Camp Pendleton" or "Naval Base Coronado" as being outside San Diego; however, other people not familiar with San Diego might not know that (they might think it is a part of San Diego, like "Miramar Air Station"). So, a while ago I made a separate section indicting the bases outside city limits, but someone changed it and took it off and merged it back into one section, like it is right now. So, I renamed it 'Military institutions in or near San Diego', but now someone has changed the title back to 'Military institutions in San Diego'. So, how should we show which bases are not located in San Diego? Should we take them off completely? I think they are good to have to on the page, to show the huge military presence around San Diego, but they shouldn't be under 'Military institutions in San Diego' if they are not in San Diego. What do others think?

-ChristopherMannMcKay 05:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say readd the "or near" and further explain their significance to San Diego. I've been to most of them and would consider them a part of San Diego. --Nehrams2020 05:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits to media

The TV station edits are clogging this article. Suggest a See also that links to the San Diego outlets like this:

• See also (as a header)
• San Diego media

San Francisco and Los Angeles have media sections but with not as much detail. See Los Angeles, CA#Media for that see also is done. Ronbo76 00:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Communities and neighborhoods

For those who may not be aware, the section "Communities and neighborhoods" is meant to be a list of those communities and neighborhoods within the city limits of San Diego. Not incorporated cities that happen to be around San Diego. National City and Chula Vista and the rest of the cities of San Diego county are separate entities and should not be listed as part of the list of San Diego communities and neighborhoods. --Eric Bekins 00:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to clean up the communities and neighborhoods list, using the official site at http://www.sandiego.gov/neighborhoods-map/. It's been difficult, because even the official website is sometimes inconsistent as far as what neighborhood is in what area, etc. Anyone with some time to look at it? Thanks! --Anietor 00:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The 'neighborhoods' map you have referenced is six years old and since then some north eastern communities have gained reorganization.[6] Also, the San Diego Police and Fire department, SANDAG (including Profile Warehouse demographics), the City Council, and the Planning Commission use the 'communities' map instead of the 'neighborhood' map you reference. There are differences between the 'neighborhoods' map and the 'communities' map, which causes some confusion. —Christopher Mann McKay^talk 01:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I noticed other sites like the ones you mentioned were different, and tried to see which were new. I wish there was one definitive authoritative list. Anyways, I'm sure I missed a few, so feel free to tweek as appropriate. --Anietor 01:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not fork this stuff? Lord knows no one unfamiliar with San Diego will want to read a boring list of all its neighborhoods. Most are at the bottom in the template anyway. The list meticulously describes Clairemont east north west and south and they all point to the same article. Not interesting enough to write a separate article yet they have to be listed the main article? This seems more like neighborhood chauvanism or downright geographic spam. Student7 (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

SD not a Global City?

I was reading about Global Cities on Wikipedia and looked to find out how SD ranked. It didn't. I found that surprising considering the criteria for entry and that the following cities were ranked:

Houston, Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Richmond (!), Tijuana. Most of these were ranked very low but San Diego was not at all. The following are some of the criteria for a "Global City."

International, first-name familiarity; whereby a city is recognised without the need for a political subdivision. For example, although there are numerous cities and other political entities with the name Paris or variations on it, one would say "Paris", not "Paris, France". Maybe...

A fairly large population (the centre of a metropolitan area with a population of at least one million, typically several million). 1.2 million

An advanced transportation system that includes several freeways and/or a large mass transit network offering multiple modes of transportation (rapid transit, light rail, regional rail, ferry, or bus). Um, yeah.

In the West, several international cultures and communities (such as a Chinatown, a Little Italy, or other immigrant communities). Check.

International financial institutions, law firms, corporate headquarters (especially conglomerates), and stock exchanges (for example the London Stock Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange, the World Bank, or the Tokyo Stock Exchange) that have influence over the world economy. Don't know.

An advanced communications infrastructure on which modern trans-national corporations rely, such as fiberoptics, Wi-Fi networks, cellular phone services, and other high-speed lines of communications. I would think so, but not sure.

World-renowned cultural institutions, such as museums and universities. San Diego Zoo, Balboa Park, more universities than you can shake a stick at.

A strong sporting community, including major sports facilities, home teams in major league sports, and the ability and historical experience to host international sporting events such as the Olympic Games, Football World Cup, or Grand Slam tennis events. I think so, but others may argue.

I'm not saying that SD is the equal of New York or Paris, but this seems like a gross oversight. Is SD ranked and it is simply not on either the Global Cities Page and the San Diego page? Apologies for the lengthy post. Had to make the arguement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.119.232.106 (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

A look at the article Global City shows that the term "is a concept promoted by the geography department at Loughborough University." The rankings are provided by that institution. It is not for Wikipedia editors to attempt to add a designation based on their own research and reasoning. That is what's called Original Research. CovenantD 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I first encountered this in the Richmond, Virginia article, when someone added this text to the economy section of that article: "Because of its "GLOBAL LEGAL SERVICE CENTRES" Richmond was named by Globalization and World Cities Study Group & Network (GaWC), as having minimal evidence of being a Global city.[7]"

I, of course, saw this as linkspam, and removed it. That spawned an edit war with the person that added it, who I still think probably works for the department that created this silly 'global city' thing. The article eventually stabilized by phrasing the section as, "Law and finance have long been driving forces in the economy. Because the city is home to both a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and a Federal Reserve Bank, as well as offices for international firms such as Hunton & Williams, LLP, McGuireWoods LLP, Troutman Sanders LLP, CapitalOne, Philip Morris USA, and numerous other banks and brokerages, Richmond was cited as having minimal evidence of being a Global city."

IMHO, I still think it's completely bullcrap, but no one's really complaining about this now, and the global city thing is really minor anyway. For what it's worth, Richmond does have a reasonable amount of legal and finance businesses and corporations. Dr. Cash 04:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. Cash. I graduated from VCU and moved to SD shortly after; thus the surpise that Richmond was on the list when San Diego was not. I've since done some research and come to conclude that the entire "global city" thing is, as you say, bullcrap; a single-source pilot study. I guess my only problem with it now is that other pages are using the study in their opening paragraph: "London (pronounced /ˈlʌndən/) is the capital city of England and the United Kingdom.

An important settlement ... its influence in politics, education, entertainment, media, fashion and the arts all contribute to its status as one of the major global cities." As if it is something to be proud of. But then I suppose my grievance is not with the San Diego page, but with others.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.119.232.106 (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

med schools

Besides UCSD, are there any other Medical Schools in San Diego city limits? -ChristopherMannMcKay 01:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Law schools

Someone (from an IP address at USD) tried to give a "ranking" of the three local law schools, which I deleted. If you can cite a legitimate source, perhaps such rankings may be appropriate, but not just some personal or subjective thought by a student of USD. --Eric Bekins 21:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It would help to review WP:NOT. Giving rankings of law schools is not what wikipedia is here for. Why are law schools even in their own subsection? Shouldn't they be in a section with 'colleges and universities'? Do we need a new subsection for medical schools, too? Culinary arts schools? Where does it end? Dr. Cash 04:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The vandal (192.195.154.163 (talk · contribs)) is back. I've reverted the edits again, and posted an additional warning on their talk page. Brian1078 22:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to write something notable about the other two law schools, but I think I agree with the above comment that for the page on San Diego, California, the details about each and every school in the area would not be a good use of space. A quick glance at some other major cities shows only a listing of colleges, but not a line about each one. That would be what each individual school's Wiki page would be for. I would agree to eliminate this subsection altogether, and just give a listing under the heading "Colleges and universities." --Eric Bekins 05:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, do not post the ratings--if someone wants to know the ratings, they can click on the school's name. Also, I don't believe law schools should have their own subsection, they should be intergrated into 'colleges and univerities' in a senstance or paragraph format. -ChristopherMannMcKay 14:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the new layout, but UCSD doesn't have it's own law school. There are only three ABA accredited law schools in San Diego, and one school that's unaccredited called Western Sierra. The list of all law schools in California is here: [8] I'll try to make the fix to the article. --Eric Bekins 16:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Law and Government

What about some civic infrastructure discussion? Is anyone expert in San Diego government that can address the 2004 change in the city's charter to move to a strong mayor form? How does one find such a person?Geoffwithers 18:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Weather averages

Can someone please provide a source for the weather averages, the current source only links to the main page. I found some other soures if they are needed: Weatherbase & MSN,

-ChristopherMannMcKay 01:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)'

Health

Someone added a health section: "San Diego is home to some of the most cutting edge health research in the country. The University of California, San Diego Medical Center[9] is known for it's world class research. Other area health organizations include Core Orthopaedic[10]."

I don't think this is revelent. Shouldn't health organizations be under economy section and UCSD info be under colleges section? Also, this section makes no reference to the poor quality of San Diego hospitals. I found a newspaper source by doing a quick search on google, which states "San Diego-area hospitals scored in the lowest 12 percent in a national, first-of-its-kind survey of whether heart and pneumonia patients received lifesaving treatments such as timely medication."[11]. I'm sure there are other examples of the poor health care San Diego has to offer. —Christopher Mann McKay 16:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

Under major ancestry groups, are the following: Asian American, White American, and African American. I have an issue with this because not all Asians, Whites, or Africans—as reported by the 2000 Census—have ancestors that are American, many are first generation Americans or not Americans at all. For example, my Japanese girlfriend has been in the United States for almost five years to get an education and is living here on a green card, but she is not considered Asian American, because she does not wish to have permanent residence in the U.S. and will move to Japan after grad school, and her ancestors are not considered American, because they were born in Japan. I believe these three ancestry groups should be renamed to exclude 'American' from each of them, does anyone object to this? —Christopher Mann McKay 15:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we change "White" to European while we are at it? This is consistent with the other ethnic groups (Asians, Africans, etc). Brian1078 16:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to renaming data obtained from sources. We get the info from the U.S. Census Bureau. They use specific terms with defined meanings. If we come up with a fresh set of terms with ptoentially different meanings we could end up with inaccurate data. The topic of Race (United States Census) has been very contentious for decades. We shouldn't get involved in this matter but simply summarize the Census, using their terms however much we dislike them. -Will Beback · † · 08:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Population and Wikipedia:Manual of Style

Does anyone know how the manual of style relates to citing population for border towns like San Diego? Ronbo76 03:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of population, please use official US Census figures when entering counts. Joe's Local Head Count and Eatery figures are clearly unofficial and non-encyclopedia, regardless of how elegant they name their organization. Worse, they have an extreme POV (Point of view, in case this is the only article you are editing. Points of view are NOT desirable for editors). Student7 (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture in the info box = butt ugly

Not that it destroys the article or is super important, but that picture is ugly. Its a somewhat foggy day, not a good view of the skyline, and showcases a vacant lot and some crumby houses, and a little known statue with a guy standing near it...whoever put that there over the previous image must be retarded.

   I am not sure if you are referring to the main picture. If you are, i couldn't agree more with you. There are a lot more spectacular views of San Diego on the web, some with the San Diego-Coronado bridge in the distance, or even aerial shots. If I knew how to edit this with skill, I'd put up a good pic, but until then...
   I also want to see some pictures of UCSD included, as well as the other San Diegan universities.
   JAGutierrez (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

a san diego county city

escondido is a san diego county city and should listed as a surrounding city —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blawton777 (talk • contribs).

The article is about the city of San Diego, not the county. Escondido is already mentioned in the county article. It does not belong in the city article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

White/black flight

I am not seeing major sources for this flight of whites and blacks from the cities. [12] says blacks are leaving, but not as bad as other cities and don't give hard figures. [13] talks about the white flight from schools, but not from the city itself. The only other things I have found were from Wikipedia articles themselves. Anon, what is your side and your sources. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

UFO

See List of major UFO sightings. Details there. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Zoo

Why is there not an article on the San Diego Zoo? Surely there is a Wikipedian out there that could write an article about what has to be considered one of the premier zoological parks in the country. Dick107 (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know where you are looking, but San Diego Zoo and San Diego Wild Animal Park both have articles. --Smashville^BONK! 21:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Politics

I have taken the pov out of the political intro. Also, possibly OR when put together. There is no way a Wikipedian or anyone else can tell exactly what the electorate is thinking this minute, much less tomorrow. Fine to connect the dots from 1900 to 2000. And from 2000 the last election. Analysis is usually pov and without a scholarly basis. Top of somebody's head. Example: What was in the NH voters mind exactly one day prior to the recent primary? Lots of brillant post-election "analysis" but all pretty sloppy the day before. Same in SC. Maybe Iowa. Predicting the future from the past has no scholarly basis in fact. Electorates reverse course without any seeming rationale.

Wikpedia does well reporting the past. Let's stick to that and allow the reader/student to do the analysis and OR and come to her/his own conclusions. It's not up to WP to draw those. Student7 (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a GLARING ERROR in this section. It states that San Diego County voted for John Kerry 55%-45% in the 2004 Election. Then, there is a link to the CA Registrar vote totals for the 2004 Election. The link shows that 52.3% voted for Bush and 47.7% voted for Kerry. I am changing this error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.162.58 (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for proving the point! It appears that we have enough trouble reporting the past accurately without trying to extrapolate this to the future. Since we don't seem to know the past, how can we glibly predict the future which is not one of our stated functions anyway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Student7 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That should read San Diego City voted for John Kerry 55%-45% over George Bush. The link shows the county and city results when you scroll down far enough. Mrsmith93309 (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just visited S.D.; I have some really good daylight photos of the skyline

It is really weird that there are several great nighttime photos of the S.D. skyline from Coronado in this article but no daylight photos from the same vantage point. Anyway, I just went to San Diego and took some good photos from Coronado at about 2 PM in the afternoon on a clear day. If no one objects, in a few days I will be uploading a couple of those photos and moving around the other photos to make room. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Should the pronunciation guide for San Diego really be written out as one big word? Right now it's written as "(pronounced /ˌsændiˈeɪgoʊ/)". Should there be a space in there, since the name consists of two words? (I would imagine it should be written like "/ˌsæn diˈeɪgoʊ/".) Funnyhat (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of San Diego

Please change the pronunciation for San Diego. According to the way it is listed, one would say Sandy-a-go when it is pronounced San Di-e-go; one syllable (first word) followed by three syllables (second word).

24.20.51.172 (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)AZ24.20.51.172 (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"According to'

The article contains entirely too many "according toos." This is definitely not only unecessary but in some cases may appear to be spam for the source quoted. The emphasis should be on San Diego not on some source which will appear in the footnote. All facts should be sourced. "According tos" should be redundant. Student7 (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"According to" may be appropriate if you're source is a particular individual or private group (in the rare cases that such quotes/opinions are appropriate), but for major media, it is unnecessary. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibility for Confusion Regarding San Diego Bay in History Section

Sorry if I'm formatting this incorrectly, I've never edited a discussion page before. I was going to edit it on the article page but obviously, that's been blocked. So this goes out to anyone who can edit this part of the History section:

"In November of 1602, Sebastián Vizcaíno was sent to map the California coast. Arriving on his flagship San Diego, Vizcaíno surveyed the harbor and what are now Mission Bay and Point Loma and named the area for the Catholic Saint Didacus, a Spaniard more commonly known as San Diego."

This is either inaccurate or misleading. San Diego has two bays, Mission Bay and San Diego Bay. San Diego Bay is the large natural harbor created by Point Loma and found by Juan Rodrigues Cabrillo. Mission Bay is the much smaller, partially man-made, recreational bay, as stated in its own Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Bay%2C_San_Diego%2C_California

As well as the City of San Diego website: http://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/parks/missionbay/index.shtml

The wording of the text is potentially confusing, and in fact at first it confused me. I had to re-read it before I determined it wasn't technically incorrect. It says "the harbor and what are now Mission Bay and Point Loma" but at no point does this part of the article clarify that San Diego Bay is the harbor discovered by the Spanish, possibly making it seem to a reader as though Mission Bay and Point Loma are connected and Mission Bay is the harbor.

I would suggest that the text should read more along the lines of either: "In November of 1602, Sebastián Vizcaíno was sent to map the California coast. Arriving on his flagship San Diego, Vizcaíno surveyed the harbor that is now San Diego Bay and named the area for the Catholic Saint Didacus, a Spaniard more commonly known as San Diego."

Or: "In November of 1602, Sebastián Vizcaíno was sent to map the California coast. Arriving on his flagship San Diego, Vizcaíno surveyed the harbor sheltered by what is now Point Loma, now San Diego Bay, and a small bay to the north, now Mission Bay, and named the area for the Catholic Saint Didacus, a Spaniard more commonly known as San Diego."

Would anyone who has the authority to edit the article please consider doing so? Verminjerky (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In a day or so, you will be able to make the changes yourself. Being a new user is what prevented your edit. Just fill in the edit summary to explain each change (or type of changes if redundant).

In the future, please add new discussion topics at the bottom. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia! Student7 (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Politics

The sentence sounds incredibly stupid. "Since 2000 San Diego has voted Democrat in presidential elections." Ok, there has only been one, just one, presidential election since 2000. That is not nearly enough to note a trend. I'm changing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.197.166 (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Put Zoo in the lead?

The Zoo is unquestionably the single most famous thing about San Diego, shouldn't it at least get a mention in the lead? I mean it seems like there is an entire paragraph about biotech but no mention of the Zoo. Sheep81 (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it was the single most famous thing about San Diego... --Smashville^BONK! 12:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What is then? Sheep81 (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

One could argue Balboa Park, Coronado, the Bay, the Padres, the Chargers, La Jolla, Convention Center, Seaworld, the Navy, the Midway, and Comic-Con among others. --Smashville^BONK! 02:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)--Smashville^BONK! 02:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't have any empirical evidence, but seriously, ask people in Florida or Australia about San Diego and see if any of those things come to mind before the Zoo. Sheep81 (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I live in Tennessee. They all did. --Smashville^BONK! 12:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I live in Florida. But did live in SD for a year or so and visit occasionally. The zoo is nice BUT SD is a big city and like all big cities it doesn't have just one focal point. List above omitted Point Loma/Cabrillo, for example. Kind of like saying the focal point of NYC is Central Park. I've only been on the periphery of CP once and never walked through it.Student7 (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect page

There seems to no longer be a need for protection for this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.100.185 (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep! Article has been subjected to frequent vandalism from unregistered users. These have gone away since the semi-protect was inserted. All a potential editor needs to do is to sign up to be eligible to edit. (Please place new topics at the bottom of the discussion page in the future. Thanks).Student7 (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Edinburgh Sisters

Is Edinburgh not in scotland. Should it not be the scotland and UK flag and scotland United Kigdom Like

• Edinburgh Scotland United Kingdom --78.144.142.134 (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Edinburgh is in Scotland, a constituent nation of the United Kingdom, whose flag is the Union Jack. I don't see a need for the Scottosh flag. We don't use prefectural flags or state flags for the other sister cities. The idea is to help recognition, not to be more obscure. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well look at the Edinburgh sister city it has the US Flag & the California State flag. Its not only in the UK Is proper country is scotland. The UK & Scotland flag has the right to be there. --78.144.142.134 (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• • This is a banned user. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the heads-up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

New City Motto

There is talk that mayor Jerry Sanders will change the motto of San Diego from "America's Finest City" to "San Diego, the Road to Happiness". Did I hear that right? 72.199.173.76 (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "sandag" :
  • {{cite web|url=http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/profiles/est/city14est.pdf|title=Population and Housing Estimates|publisher=[http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/ SANDAG: Profile Warehouse]|date=2006|accessdate=2007-02-19}}
  • {{cite web|url=http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/profiles/fcst/city14fcst.pdf|title=2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update|publisher=[http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/ SANDAG: Profile Warehouse]|date=2006|accessdate=2007-02-18}}
• "sdtribunecrime" :
  • {{cite news |url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060414/news_7m14stats.html|title=County crows at glowing crime report|author=Tony Manolatos and Kristina Davis|publisher=The San Diego Union-Tribune|date=[[2006-04-14]]|accessdate=2006-04-29}}
  • {{cite news}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Census

In most area in the US, we continually have someone trying to update census figures based on annual guesstimates by the Census Deparment, in between censuses. This needs to stop. People fight over the actual ten year censuses as being inaccurate. The in between guesstimates are a lot worse! Student7 (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There were just a lot of census figures updates which I did not verify and had no edit summaries. I suggest that if you can't avoid it, just revert back to the previous correct version and let subsequent editors reenter material. Student7 (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

There is currently a proposal on the table to amend the Wikipedia naming conventions for US cities to follow the AP Stylebook's suggested names. This would effectively move a number of US city articles currently on the list, so San Diego, California would be moved to San Diego. To comment on this discussion, please go here. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Fire

I think the new "Fire" section should go somewhere. Not sure that it belongs under ecology at all. We seem to be missing a "Health and Public safety" type section. Have a crime section separate which is okay.

Another place for the fire section is under history. Thoughts?Student7 (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Whale's vagina

I'm really tired of this. Short of permanent semi-protect, is there any way to thwart this one pre-eminent vandalism to this article? Once I was on a site where someone had asked for a footnote. I placed the first one I could find. It was immediately reverted by a 'bot! An admin has set this up, got sick of reverting the same wrong reference by well-meaning (but naive!) editors and had a bot looking at it! (I found one he liked BTW). Anyway, is there any way we can put a bot to screen for this on this article? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A bot sounds like a great idea. Any bot writers out there? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Also...why isn't Whale's vagina a redirect? :) --Smashville^talk 18:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think you can censor the whale's vagina reference even though it is a cultural reference fact and even though it's the only thing about 98% of the planet know about the place.

Do you have a reliable source? --Smashville^talk 22:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I first learned about this reference through WP:FILTER when looking at all of Wikipedia's abuse filters. I'm curious as to how San Diego got associated with whale's vaginas to begin with. What exactly is German for that part of a whale's anatomy? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, Wal Scheide. lol 192.12.88.7 (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, there IS a place in France whose name apparently means "whale's vagina" in German 192.12.88.7 (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

there's also "Walmuschi", but that comes from a forum, not a reliable source. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't based on fact. Apparently just a throwaway, smart alecky line in a movie that 11 year old boys find terrifically amusing. Student7 (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's Anchorman. I'm an adult and find it terrifically amusing. :P ^Law _shoot! 04:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. May I ask why? Student7 (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

move the 'Politics' section so it is below the 'Culture' section

The politics section (which most articles dont have I think) is interesting and noteworthy I suppose and I dont object to the content, but I think it should be below the Culture section. Politics is part of culture, political culture, and I think it would be better suited under the Cultural section (not apart of the Culture section though). Right now it is below the 'Education' section. Given that there arent any transition sentences from the Education section to the Politics section, it will be a simple, easy, straight forward move of the content. I think the politics section should be lower than the Culture section, given that 1) poltiics is part of culture, 2) it is less important 3) most articles dont have such a section. Im going to move it, if anyone objects- we can have a discussion here. 134.121.247.116 (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I would rather see the Politics section below the Government section. Eventually, BTW, it will grow so it will have to be moved to another article. There will ultimately be three new articles: "Government of San Diego," "Elections in San Diego," and "Politics of San Diego." Politics may but most likely will not include remarks made by one candidate against another but more likely initiatives for/against city pensions and the like - in other words high level politics not the petty politics of getting a candidate elected! Student7 (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

We gotta work on the footnotes...

The footnotes section needs to include descriptions of the citation. I think the San Diego article (and the Los Angeles one too for that matter) is being held back because of the lack of a description on the citations, might be why this article isnt doing so well on the quality scale.

If you look at the San Francisco and Seattle articles, they

• 1) Have a lot more footnotes (142 for San Francisco and 173 for Seattle)
• 2) They are all described.

I guess we shouldnt mind about the number of footnotes, we should just care about the quality of the footnotes, they have more footnotes simply because they are bigger (Seattle article is 117,838 bytes and San Francisco article is 119,740 bytes).But, we should go back and change the bot generated footnotes if we can. It would really make it look nicer if you could click a reference and it highlights a link (obviously for online references) and know exactly what it is before you even click it...like these:

< ref name="06EST">"Population Estimates for the 25 Largest U.S. Cities based on July 1, 2006 Population Estimates" (PDF). US Census Bureau. Retrieved 2007-06-28.< /ref>

< ref>"Crime in the San Diego Region Mid-Year 2006 Statistics" (PDF). http://www.sandag.org/ San Diego's Regional Planning Agency]. 2006-02-16. Retrieved 2007-01-28. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)< /ref>

< ref>"San Diego CA Crime Statistics (2005 Crime Data)". www.AreaConnect.com. Retrieved 2007-04-02. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)< /ref>

134.121.247.116 (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A new editor put four tags at the top. These were subsequently scrubbed to two by an unregistered editor. I think enough of us have been aware of either placing footnotes or requesting footnotes, that we are "getting to" that requirement (tag erased as I write here), Readability is often an issue when we have so many editors and styles. If possible, could you read over the paragraph or even the section/subsection you are editing for style? That might help. Thanks. (wrote this as a separate section before reading and making it a part of the section above. Editor has made a good point).Student7 (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco has 6 footnotes per page, we have four per. (I won't even talk about Los Angeles, but if you want to make yourself feel good at the expense of another article, go there!  :) 14:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that LA article was a Good Article on the quality scale, lol. Wish we could say the same for the San Diego article :[

Anyway, im planning on wikifying all the footnotes in the San Diego article. Ive been busy working the Spokane article (wikifying all the footnotes using the citation templates among other things). My wrist sorta hurts right now, but i plan get around to this in the not-to-distant future. Nobody be afraid to help me! Anon134 (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have Wikified all the links in the References section using the citation templates. I found a few links that suffered from link rot(dead links) that I labeled. In the future we should try to re-reference those citations, etc. We should try to use the citation templates, most of the Good Articles i've seen use the Wikipedia citation templates. It makes everything consistent, more scholarly, and nice looking if anything else. If we get lazy and stop using them, then the work will pile up so much that nobody will want to fix it -and the reference section will just decend into chaos. Thanks, Anon134 (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Relevance and quality of some of the pictures

Too many pictures? Not only that, some are placed in sections/contexts that arent relevant to the topic. I know San Diego is the most beautiful place in the world, but we shouldnt go overboard with pictures like the Los Angeles article did.

Examples of what im talking about:

In the History section:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Skyscraperview.jpg

In the Demographics section:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SANO1_015.jpg

In the Economy section:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Star_of_the_Sea.jpg

No disprespect to the photographer but the following arent very appealing to the eye:

In the Transportation section:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Star_of_the_Sea.jpg

This one again. Not only is it sorta useless, its jusy a plain bad picture. It has white specs on it, the focal point is in the background, the guy in the there makes me depresssed-hes slouching like a humpback... The Star of India is supposed to look nice.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:I-5_South_San_Ysidro.jpg

We already have two very nice photographs in this section, I dont see why this slightly blurred one of an absolutely unremarkable exit is on here.

Point:

In sum, I think the photos should be 1) relevant to the section they are in and 2) halfway decent and generally nice to look at (if its supposed to be). I would elect to take them out or at least replace them with better pictures.

Idea:

• http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/I-80_Eastshore_Fwy.jpg

A picture like this one would look awesome. For some reason I thought we had a photo of a a freeway where cars were entering and exiting San Diego with the skyline in the background. I wonder where that went sometimes...maybe it could be redone by someone with a nice camera? Just some thoughts and ideas. Anon134 (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say, take out all those which you think are inappropriate. We'll go through BRD if need be. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

There are only a couple which I think should be removed. The others probably should be relocated or something-they are sorta cluttering up the article. Ill try to do what I can to unclutter it. If anyone has any concerns about the relocation or deletion of any of the photos, start a conversation here so we all can discuss it.

Oh, and about the picture with the freeway and the skyline and such-I figured out its still in the article in Transportation (the nice I-5 photo), lol-I just missed it somehow. Thanks! Anon134 (talk) 09:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Neighborhoods section

Student7 and I have been floating ideas on what to do with the Neighborhoods section. Right now it is basically a more eye-appealing list that has almost no content. If we are satisfied keeping it a simple list, I would recommend just providing a 'main article' redirect to the List of neighborhoods of San Diego, California. Or we could maybe do what the LA article did and list the sections of the city and elaborate on the most notable neighborhoods within each section, sort of like the LA article does below:

From the LA article:

"...The city is divided into many neighborhoods, many of which were towns that were annexed by the growing city. There are also several independent cities in and around Los Angeles, but they are popularly grouped with the city of Los Angeles, either due to being completely engulfed as enclaves by Los Angeles, or lying within its immediate vicinity. Generally, the city is divided into the following areas: Downtown Los Angeles, Northeast - including Highland Park and Eagle Rock areas, the Eastside, South Los Angeles (still often colloquially referred to as South Central by locals), the Harbor Area, Hollywood, Wilshire, the Westside and the San Fernando and Crescenta Valleys.

Some well-known communities of Los Angeles include West Adams, Watts, Leimert Park, Baldwin Hills, Venice Beach, the Downtown Financial District, Los Feliz, Silver Lake, Hollywood, Koreatown, Westwood and the more affluent areas of Bel Air, Benedict Canyon, Hollywood Hills, Hancock Park, Pacific Palisades, and Brentwood..."

The LA article also has a neighborhood list, List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles, which is more of an article than an actual "list". Maybe the San Diego article could have something along the lines of this. I dont know. To me, anything would be better than a simple, space consuming list of neighborhoods. Anon134 (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The SD neighborhood subsection is currently a boring list (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY) for outsiders who will either skip it if we are lucky and stop reading the article entirely, if we are unlucky. It is mainly there to appease neighborhood chauvinists. Since I believe there is much merit to the rest of the article and would like to see casual readers continue their reading, I would prefer to see a fork to the other article as Anon134 first suggested. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Colleges

As I recall, any group in California can call itself a college unless this has changed. This leads the "Fashion Design" folks to make a legitimate entry under colleges. I wonder if this will get out of control with Auto Mechanic College, Barber college, etc? We might think about what can be done with the section - like forking it or limiting it to institutions with some kind of academic accreditation, assuming that is allowed under Wikipedia policy. Having said that, California is (or was) unique in that regard and the admins might cut us a bit of slack if as long as we didn't get overly precise. Student7 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...I dunno what the cut off point for inclusion in the list should be. The list doesnt need to be all-inclusive and comprehensive, we want to keep the content as relevant as possible. We also dont want to put readers to sleep reading the list of all the tiny schools in the area. The list of colleges is a bit long. Whatever you can do to help it Student is alright with me. Anon134 (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I just want to note that the Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising does have academic accreditation, as stated on its site as well as on the sites of the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities and the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, 2 of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges' (WASC) 3 commissions. Of course, I agree that non-accredited institutions (such as barber college) need not be added to the list of colleges.Raskovnik (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

US Census "not good enough"?

According to WP:CITIES, US Census figures should be used. While others are allowed, they must be shown to be reliable. See WP:RELY. Why does SANDAG exist except to promote aid to the area or to justify spending money on something? They are clearly a WP:POV organization, which is just fine, except an encyclopedia should not be using their figures in lieu of unbiased ones.Student7 (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

San Diego and the U.S. Navy, etc

I feel the two short paragraphs dedicated to the military specifically (one of which is pretty much a list of installations) and the few other short sentences scattered over the article about the military dont exactly communicate the significance of the institutions (esp. the Navy) in San Diego. There should be definitely something mentioned about the Navy in the Lead, because of its role for for the US Pacific fleet. San Diego has been a Navy town for decades and nobody could imagine what San Diego would be like without the Navy! I think we should do something about that. I wish I could help with such a task... :(

PS: This Talk page is getting really long. Archive?

Anon134 (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've archived the 2007 discussions. Regarding your main point, I agree and I hope someone will add more.   Will Beback  talk  10:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is sometimes difficult to remember that the Navy is a federal institution and has its own article. Yes, the fleet at SD has responsibilities which have nothing to do with this article. A separate article limiting navy discussions to the ships based at San Diego or San Diego metro, might be fine. But the topic here must be the city - what economic impact has it had? Social impact in history maybe. Impact on housing costs. That sort of thing. I don't know where the "wow" factor goes, but maybe not here. There is a separate article on Miramar. Does the Naval base have one? Probably should. Student7 (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... The idea I was getting at was how the military (specifically the Navy) impacts San Diego. I agree 100% content about operations and such at each Naval base doesnt belong here. I admit I dont know much about the Navy (which is sorta sad since both my grandparents served in the Navy) and I cant really speak in specifics about its signifance to the city, but I would be dumbstruck if the presence of "the largest number of naval facilities in the world" doesnt have some kind of social or economic impact on the city. I would mostly like to see more elaboration on how exactly the Navy impacts the economy of San Diego. It just seems like something is being left out...one short paragraph and a list of installations dedicated to the topic just doesnt seem right to me. Anon134 (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't care for SANDAG generally, but they may have usable data on this if no one else has, if you are interested. DOD may have it somewhere, too, but figures may be exaggerated. Not that SANDAGs aren't. Really needs the "smell" test. 10,000 housing units might be reasonable. 100,000 probably isn't. 15% of the economy might be reasonable. 65% probably isn't. etc. A very serious problem is limiting it to the city. I believe this may be impossible. Nearly all studies would naturally assume the county or metro area, both of which could probably use a section too, though I haven't checked.

Another possibility is local college "studies" contracted by DoD. They have the promise of being "scholarly" at any rate. Good luck! Student7 (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

New montage image

I love the new montag, its nicely done. However, I noticed when comparing it to the other montages, such as the Los Angeles, Detroit, and New York City montages that the San Diego one is significantly bigger (length and width wise). If you switch back and forth from the LA to SD montages, you can really see the difference (using the top of the page at load as a bearing)-in the LA infobox you can see stuff beyond the montage, while the SD one takes up the whole page. If you look at all the other montages, it seems that they are standardized, and are of similar size. I dont know if this is a Wikipedia policy or something, but I think it would be better if this one followed suit. Anon134 (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is the Hotel Del Coronado included in the montage? The Del is located in the city of Coronado, not the city of San Diego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.172.52 (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right, of course. I personally can't do anything about the Montage, but I've removed other references to Coronado which belong in the SD Metro article and/or the SD County article. Pendleton isn't in SD either! Student7 (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

New level 2 header

In the level 2 header, Education, I created a new level 3 header, San Diego authors. I'd like some people to put some authors besides Robert Titzer into the section. Veraladeramanera (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I took out the subsection. We have a side article that is dedicated to famous and noteworthy San Diego residents; it is more appropriate to put them in the side than to create a simple list in the heart of the main article. Im going to put Robert in there there. Hope you can understand the rationale, Thanks. Anon134 (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Precipitation data is clearly wrong

The precipitation data for San Diego is completely off. It does not receive 92 inches of rainfall annually, that would make it one of the wettest cities in the US, which it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.111.228 (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 92 inches of rain anually would be a lot, but i don't see that written anywhere... it says 10. Benklop (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

comma in 2008

in the side bar where statistics about the city are, at the top of the article, it mentions the population if you include tiajuana, and says the stats are from 2008. Unfortunately there is a comma in the middle of 2008 which chould not be there. I didn't see it in the wiki code, so I have no idea why it is there... can something be done about this?

Benklop (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Temperatures all screwed up

Whoever transcribed the temperature data from the Weather Channel page screwed it all up. I noticed this when I read that, according to the Wikipedia article, that September is the hottest month. I've lived here for almost my entire life, and it's August. So then I examined the other average high temperatures, and they are ALL pretty much wrong, not at all matching the source -- or other sources like citydata.com, for example. The other temperatres appear to be more accurate, but I did not check every one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.146.141 (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the August and September numbers in the article, they do match the weather.com site, so I'm not sure what your basis is for saying the numbers are wrong. Can you be more specific? Are you basing your comments on what you have personally experienced? Your "I've lived here for almost my entire life" statement implies as much. If that's the case, then you must see how that really isn't relevant. --anietor (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)