Talk:San Diego/Archive 1

message: Not 100% sure, but I edited the city council on Infobox to say what political parties the councilors belong to. I believe there maybe one or two possibly wrong. If anyone knows please take a look.
:City offices are non-partisan. Their political party is no mor relevant than their religion or ethnicity. -Will Beback 01:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: City Council

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

message: ABOUT famous HIGH SCHOOLS IN SAN DIEGO....and what their claim to fame is, then it would be off the main page, because i find it annoying to to see one school be talked about and another not, and there constantly being changed
:That might work. "Famous" would not be a good criteria. Probably List of schools in San Diego, California would be an appropriate title. Also, one of the norms on Wikipedia is to sign your talk page comments, which can be done by typing four tildes (~). Cheers, -Willmcw 21:56, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks, I m working on a page of schools, but the whole wikipedia thing is new to me but I have updated the page of san diego airport. --Randomgbear 21:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  couldn't we make a separate page 

message: A confused request to move a page was made on WP:RM March 29, 2005, this seems the bast place to discuss it:
:Saint Augustine High School should be moved to a seperate page, it's own St. Augustine High School.  (Cannot be automatically done because a redirect now exists at this page.) Other schools have there own and there was one for itself for awhile. Also it is on the page for the city of san diego. thats is public and could cause controversy --Randomgbear 16:45, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
If you follow this link you can edit the redirect and start the article. violet/riga (t) 20:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move: Saint Augustine High School

message: A recently added link to a website seems to be on the borderline of acceptable. "San Diego Church Review & Guide"  is "made up of several individuals who believe it is extremely important for non-christians, new believers and mature believers to find a church that is centered on the Bible." It rates churches on how closely they conform to this group's view of Christianity. It is a frankly biased approach and seems out of place in a list of uncontroversial links. If we keep it I think that we should describe it in some manner. Do other editors have opinions? -Willmcw 03:23, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
I believe it is a valuable resource for people. -DG 03:23, Oct 08, 2005 (Linda Vista) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2005 71.137.86.113 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 October
:I've looked at the website, and even for an article on Religion in San Diego County the website would be inappropriate since it almost completely Protestant churches, and is very biased towards a certain viewpoint of Christianity--even rating the churches on a 0-5 rating scale for various categories. Hopefully there is a much better website for religion in San Diego since there is some very interesting history (the Theosophical Society in Pt. Loma for example), as well as interesting recent developments. For the San Diego and San Diego County articles I don't think any religion guide is appropriate.  BlankVerse ∅ 10:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church guide 

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

message: All right, ladies & gents. I propose that we stop editing the WAP entry in the article until we've hashed out a consensus, as this appears to be much more contentious than I originally thought it would be. Derek and Norvy both made some good points above, so let's vote and see if we can't figure out what the group wants to do.
:A vote for Support indicates that the reference to the Wild Animal park should stay as it is right now (*San Diego Wild Animal Park)
:A vote for Oppose indicates that the reference to the Wild Animal Park should read "in nearby Escondido, CA".
Other votes are welcomed with explanatory notes. Let's vote for five days and on 28 August I'll change the article to read however the consensus goes. If there's no consensus, we'll try at that time to hash out a compromise.
*Oppose. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll happily change my vote if we can get something like that. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I can also confirm this.  After the city built Sutherland Dam, farmers sued the city because they feared it would damage the water table.  The farmers won, and the city was ordered to buy the land.  They turned it into San Pasqual Agricultural Preserve.  Part of this land is where the WAP stands today.  And I've got a cite: (Myers, Douglas  pp. 180-180, 186.)  -- Norvy (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: Support Willmcw write-in San Pasqual Valley is an unincorporated community. Notice that San Pasqual Valley does not show up on Google maps. Furthermore, most San Diegans have never heard of that community, so it's not useful to say the park is located there. The correspondence above from the WAP indicate that it is indeed within the city boundaries (the city bought the land and incorporated it). The mailing zip for the park is an Escondido zip code, but that doesn't mean it's in Escondido. I once lived in a small independent borough outside of a Pittsburgh, but my zip code always resolved as a Pittsburgh zip. Notice the location on this Google map; the light gray shading that extends east on route 78 is part of the city; you can verify that by looking at this official city map. So; technically, it's in the city of San Diego. Practically speaking, the nearest notable community is Escondido. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Addendum Verbivorous, I just looked at the changes you made...looks good (the neighborhood map you included on the San Pasqual page is helpful). OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll to establish consensus re: Wild Animal Park location 

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

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

message: The basis for naming this page San Diego, California instead of simply San Diego and all other city articles according to a contrived City, State convention is a claim that this convention has been generally accepted.  Yet there are important exceptions like New York City (rather than New York, New York) and no record of a vote on this issue.  Shouldn't the name of this page be Boston since there is clearly no ambiguation issue (the Boston page is currently a redirect to this page anyway), and that is the universally common name used for the city (like New York City, not New York, New York, is for New York City).  To settle this issue there is a vote on whether the City, State and Neighborhood, City, State conventions should apply even in cases where there is no significant ambiguity issue, such as in San Diego.  You would be voting essentially on whether the name of this page and all other unambiguous city and neighborhood articles should be something like San Diego, California, New York, New York, La Jolla, San Diego, California and Hollywood, Los Angeles, California according to "convention", or named according to the unambiguous common name of the place, like San Diego, New York City, La Jolla and Hollywood (but only when the name is unambiguous), like all other Wiki articles. Vote (and discuss further) here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) --Serge 07:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Undecided, pending further discussion. I see the benefits of both, so I'd like to hear other arguments before voting. I do like the consistency of knowing that when you have {BLANK0}, State, you know that {BLANK0} is a city, and when you have {BLANK1}, {BLANK0}, State, you know that {BLANK1} is a part in the whole of {BLANK0} and that {BLANK1} is a dependent of {BLANK0}, etc. Given all that (granted, unsubstantiated) desire for consistency, I have seen style guides (AP?) where just the city name is preferred over the city + state combination for a set list of cities (couldn't find such a list online in my quick search). So it wouldn't be completely odd to have San Diego be on Wikipedia's version of that list. (Also: I'm surprise such a city-naming standard hasn't been defined yet; can that be true?) --Derek 19:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) -Willmcw 22:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

message: I think the communities and neighborhoods section should be organized with neighborhoods being shown as part of communities.  For example. Bird Rock and La Jolla Shores are both neighborhoods within the community of La Jolla. --Serge 00:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you clarify your suggestion? Are you referring to the list in this article? -Willmcw 06:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communities and neighborhoods 

message: The nice City Infobox says 32°42′54″ N 117°09′45″ W
the Geography section says 32°46'46" North, 117°8'47" West. ??
The latter should arguably use  based on my limited understanding. --Skierpage 07:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting location coordinates 

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

message: San Diego is a Cultural Center of Southern California. It has a very large Mexican population due to its adjacent location across the border from Tijuana, a cultural center of Mexico. Latin American Culture plays a large part in San Diego. As well as cultural influences from Asia.
I have some issue with that text. I live here and thought that LA, was the center of SoCal culture. They have more people within the City Limits, and the Metor Area for one, and they have Hollywood and Beverly Hills, both quintessential symbols of Southern California. When you think of SoCal, you think of the Hollywood Sign, not the San Diego Zoo.--Chicbicyclist 06:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says a cultural center, not the cultural center. On the other hand, calling any city a "culture center" is iffy since it's hard to verify.  In any case, the section you cite isn't particularly well-written or informative; I don't think it adds much to the article.  OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Center of Culture 

message: I started an independent "History of San Diego" article in the same fashion as Los Angeles. A "Main article" reference is mentioned on the trimmed history section of this article, and a new addition of the rebound of downtown is present on both versions. 
Yet, my biggest issue is with the quality of the pictures: they are awful compared to the pictures of other same sized cities. I could try to take new pictures, but that's going to take centuries.
-Lrd1rocha 05:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New history article, pictures

message: Can anyone confirm that Mr. Tom Waits, singer, songwriter and musician is a resident of the city?  And if so, may we add him to the list?
207.62.13.66 22:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it seems that he attended high school in Chula Vista and lived in San Diego at one time, the Tom Waits article states that he currently lives in Sebastopol, California. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable resident:  Tom Waits 

message: I edited the introduction to get rid of some strong adjectives that are either POV or teetered close to it.  Overall, the intro felt like a tourism guide, not an encylopedia entry.  (For example, Hillcrest is a predominately gay and lesbian neighborhood.  That's NPOV.  But to say it's "out and proud" is POV.)  The article overall should be edited to make sure it's wikified.
Chart123 17:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup Intro 

message: There seems to be some confusion lingering certain spots about what constitutes the "city" and what's part of the "county."  La Jolla, El Cajon, Coronado, San Ysidro, etc. are not technically part of the city, but are part of the county -- each is its own city.  The "Communities" section should explicitly reflect this.
Chart123 17:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like I might be wrong, then.  Fair enough.  Can we get some references, then? Chart123 19:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed those communities are officially part of the city. Here's the official city "neighborhood" guide and it clearly has those communities within the city border. Here's the link: http://www.sandiego.gov/neighborhoods-map/index.shtml. Only Coronado is the actual city.--Chicbicyclist 20:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Communities" v. Separate Cities 

message: There are no references on this page.  San Diego is the 7th largest city in the United States.  Surely we can find some references for the stats and claims?
Chart123 18:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Soltras 05:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References? 

message: There remains a good bit of POV language.  "Out and proud," describing Hillcrest in the overview, for example, is POV and should be removed.
To repeat my earlier post, the whole article should be edited to get rid of POV language.  Chart123 14:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting rid of POV language 

message: I read through the article and did some minor cleanup of POV terms (though there wasn't much, mostly just in the cuisine section). Anyone have any objections to removal of these tags? OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a citation to back up the claim that SD was the seventh largest US city. Until other original research in the article can be specifically identified on the talk page, I removed the original research tag. Soltras 05:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research and Advert tags

message: I am revising the communities and neighborhoods section. I am removing alot of the developer named "communities"(like Pacific Highland Ranch, Fairbanks Country Club, Santa Luz, Murphy Canyon, San Pasqual, Miramar North Ranch - some of these communities are actually part of other pre-existing neighborhood/community) and will be using the official city list found here: 
http://www.sandiego.gov/neighborhoods-map/index.shtml
In the case of some neighborhoods where they are divided into East and West(as is the case of Mission Valley, Clairemont Mesa, City Heights, and others) or North and South, I will be combining them into one common name instead. I am doing this to avoid more confusion, have a standard, prevent further conflicts regarding what constitutes a community that is part of San Diego, what an actual part of what community is and tidy that section up.--Chicbicyclist 21:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that rework. A cautionary note, I'd be hesitant to use the City of San Diego's website as an authority. There are significant errors in the maps via the link you used above (including transposition of location of San Carlos and Lake Murray, misspellings of neighborhood names, incorrect grouping and dividing, etc.). I would sooner trust a Thomas Bros.- or AAA-created map than the city's own site, which is sad. [If only the city's webmaster was as meticulous as Wikipedians are!] --Derek 23:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you to take the city's own website with an appropriate grain of salt but this would at least stop people from adding overly obvious developer named communities from the previous version. If anybody is more knowledgeable than I am in the groupings, especially with the neighborhoods and communities in the northern and southern part of the city, I invite them to contribute or revise the current version. Also, I need inputs on wether some communities listed in the Western grouping are more appropriate in the Central grouping, especially the older neighborhoods immediately north/northeast of Downtown, immediatlye south of Mission Valley, and West of Midcity. Considering they have more in common culturally with downtown than beach communities, they are denser and more urban then the latter.--Chicbicyclist 00:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More community section goodness