Talk:San Jose, California

Landmarks

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

Nicknames

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

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

Why the Unref tag

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

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

Doing as I suggested, I removed the tag. Ikluft (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The references still need to be wikified using the citation templates and such. Hopefully i'll have the time to help do that in the future, my wrist hella hurts right now. Anon134 (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

San Jose Flag and Seal

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

I tried finding them, but high resolution (HR) images are non-existent; I have emailed the city requesting for the seals. Also, if one takes careful notice, the seals of the flag and the official seal itself are actually quite different, though are very similar if seen from far away. The HR images I found in google seem to be privately made, and do not match that of the city.

>>Atsuke (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Done! But not of high quality. Apparently I got an email back from the city saying that they reserve high quality pictures for city-sponsored events. I guess I can push for it but since someone posted it up already, it doesn't look half-bad. >>Atsuke (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC).

San José

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

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

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

You can save yourself the work. It's acceptable to leave it without the accent. The point is not controversial that San Jose without the accent is the common usage outside the city government. It's a tip of the hat to the historic origin but not a requirement. Ikluft (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds good to me. The frustrating thing for me is looking at this article and seeing the accent in some instances and not in others. It would just be nice to see some consistency. Maybe that's the copy editor in me.  :) 75.17.119.5 (talk)

Sorry, that was me. Beckerbuns (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC).

I have changed changed San José to San Jose in references to the city or to organizations that spell it without the accent. I have changed the name to San José, as needed, when referring to organizations or entities that spell it with the accent. So, apart from anything I may have missed, we are now consistent, even though it might not appear that way at first glance. Peter Chastain (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

One milion population

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

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

WP:USCITY states specifically US Census numbers only. Local agencies invariably overestimate populations and do so by amounts which are not consistent in methodology with other local estimates around the country. There's only one agency that has estimated all 259 U.S. cities, and it's NOT the California Department of Finance, who has a budget to balance on those numbers.--Loodog (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

USCITY is a guideline. It talks about WP:LEAD. YOu are deleting info from everywhere, and without discussion. This is unacceptable. While I disagree with your logic, I may agree the text may be removed from the intro, for consistency of comparison, but whatever you may think about any governmental institutions and about US President, this gives you no right to completely censor the reports from them. Xuz (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, for the glib nature of the reversion, but this has been discussed in the past, and has been resolved similarly on Los Angeles, and so I assumed you had read. WP:USCITY represents a guideline agreed upon by the overwhelming consensus of editors. I'm not sure what you mean about "everywhere", you may be mistaking me for someone else. I merely reverted the inclusion of population data which consensus has been not to include.--Loodog (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, read my previous answer carefully: you all (not personally you, but "you watchdogs of this page") are reading from WP:USCITY more than it says: it restricts the intro section only. Will you care to re-read the guideline yourself or shall I cut and paste a piece from it here? Xuz (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The current revision appears to be in line with the USCITY guideline and it is perfectly reasonable to let it stand. Perhaps a slight wording change to reinforce the fact that these numbers are supplemental to the Census figures - but it's ok as it is to include the alternative figure where it is. The snarky comeback really isn't required, however. Shereth 18:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What is really required is some respect to other unsuspecting editors. When a dozen of different editors try to add some piece of info, isn't it a hint it is time to have some statement in talk page, rather than immediate reverts? Xuz (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Relax. Loodog is one of the few wikipedians who takes the time to do the rather thankless job of trying to make sure that the statistical information in various US City articles is both up to date and accurate, hence his repeated involvement here. A little discussion here is all that is required; there is no need to start making insinuations one way or another. The point has been made, and if the emerging comments are any indicator, it has been accepted. Shereth 18:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

I'm simply reporting my the consensus and arguments for it, made through rigorous amounts of discussion at WP:USCITY. Consensus is broadly based on arguments for: (1) consistency, (2) neutrality, and (3) accuracy. Additionally, particularly in this case and California, there's another reason: these are numbers used by the California Department of Finance to balance the budget. Given the state of California's fiscal health, their numbers might have been a tad overgenerous.

You are welcome to go there and make the case for an alternative convention if you disagree.--Louiedog (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I propose a compromise. We put the California Finance Department's population estimate as well as the official US Census one.

2010 Census Updates

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

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

I agree, we should revise the 2009 estimates as soon as the census data comes out. >>Atsuke (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

{{CB-support}} As soon as the census data is available. But the 2010 census data collection is only in progress right now. It'll be a while before it's processed and published. Don't hold your breath. Ikluft (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Library

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

Thanks a lot! Much obliged.

>>Atsuke (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Info Box Image

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

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

I'd vote for images that actually show the character of the city rather than mere landmarks: West San Carlos neon signs, aging strip malls on the South or East sides, perspective shots of tract suburban housing. There's potentially a good history shot or two in Alviso, especially if you need something from North. --NickGlasowiski (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There should be plenty of ideas at List of attractions in Silicon Valley. Ikluft (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(Proposal) Shall we vote the top 5 or 6 pictures to add onto the new infobox? I definitely agree about adding one picture of the suburbs, as the suburban development in the 60's pushed San Jose into becoming a major city of the West. How's this picture? It's quite picturesque if you ask me. ;) >>Atsuke (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

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

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

Metric System? Why not US style.

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

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

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

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

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

Main picture change

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

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

I've done that, but the problem is that it only shows part of the skyline and not the entire one. The reason for this is that 280 is REALLY close to the downtown area, so a wide angle lens is needed (those "fish-eyed" types). (1st pic|2nd pic) Please note that the images are copyrighted (hosted by facebook, hence the small resolution) and are not meant to be used publicly until I release them under a license. :) >>Atsuke (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Update So I was playing with photoshop and--yes, I know I shouldn't be posting my pictures like this--came up with this. It was cloudy that day, which is a bummer. >>Atsuke (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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