Talk:San Jose, California/Archive 2

3889:

Jose, it's an automatic redirect. The arguments in the above discussion also point out that per other wiki guidelines, even though San Jose officially changed to include the dialectic, the vast majority of common usage does not. Frankly, I don't have an opinion, as a I see both sides of the argument. My concern with your edit(s), is that they go against consensus. That was my sole reason for reverting you. If you open another discussion, and at this time consensus changes, then I'd revert someone who tried to change it the other way. Another key thing is that you should NEVER cut and paste, but use the MOVE function, which you can't, since there is already a redirect blocking the move. Take it easy.

2589:

frequently preempted, even for charter cities, by explicit language in a bill. Garbage collection and disposal was always considered a municipal affair, until the State established the current permitting system in the 1970s and set a 50% recycling goal for every city in 1989. The requirements for cities to prepare plans, report to the State, and at least attempt to achieve the goals apply to all cities, charter and general law. Whenever an interest group that does not like some local regulation thinks that it can get a majority in the legislature, they will try to get preemption language into a related bill.--

3361:

there is no verifiable proof that this is even an official name, or a non-official rule of thumb by the council, or even merely the webmasters on www.sanjoseca.gov acting on their own. As of now, the only official evidence I can verify is the city charter, and it does not use the accent. How can we use the accent whenever possible in the article when there is no evidence that it is actually official? A stylized form of the subject's title on its seal or logo does not automatically make it official if it is used differently in most other cases.

1889:, 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.-- 1472:, 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.-- 2582:"SEC. 5. (a) It shall be competent in any city charter to provide that the city governed thereunder may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters and in respect to other matters they shall be subject to general laws. City charters adopted pursuant to this Constitution shall supersede any existing charter, and with respect to municipal affairs shall supersede all laws inconsistent therewith." 746: 31: 2205:

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! :)

89:

who/what has "San José has had a large active gay and lesbian lifestyle community for over two decades, mostly centered in the downtown sections." 4. According to who/what is it that the statement in 2 "may explain" the statement in 3. Is this just common knowledge I'm missing here does a being considered secular lead to having gays and lesbians have an "active gay and lesbian lifestyle community"?

4510: 3586: 3236:

in BOTH upper- and lower-case letters, but not when the name is stated ONLY in upper-case letters. The accent reflects the Spanish version of the name, and the dropping of accents in all-capital writing was TYPICAL in Spanish. The name is still more commonly spelled without the diacritical mark as San Jose, but I think that the official and correct name is San José.

3469:

previously had over a million people (it's not even the first time the U.S. has had ten cities over a million at the same time - according to the Census Bureau, Phoenix reached the mark in 1991 and Detroit fell from the mark in 1996). That said, I'm not sure what the most efficient way to phrase this sentence would be, short of just stating the population.

3072: 703:

the remark here to the talk page where discussion should take place. I don't know who added the figure in the first place. But now it has been called into question. Let's find the proper references and, as necessary, update the figure in the article text. For references, URLs do the most good because other editors can quickly verify them.

3587:

https://web.archive.org/20140703075245/http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-context=st&-qr_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_S2001&-ds_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_&-CONTEXT=st&-tree_id=307&-keyword=San%20Jose,%20California&-redoLog=true&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=16000US0668000&-format=&-_lang=en

3590: 1645:

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.

1228:

2189:. 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. 1696:, 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. 1279:, 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. 1714:, 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.-- 1297:, 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.-- 3402:

Except that the creation of a separate MOS:HAWAII guideline was warranted because many Hawaii-related articles were under such discussion. San Jose appears to be the only California-related subject with this dispute. If there is consensus to apply some of the MOS:HAWAII guidelines here, that is fine,

3360:

are preferred over the official ones. As Closeapple has stated, most third party reliable sources do not use the accent. As for the city council's policy (which is still irrelevant under Knowledge (XXG)'s article naming guidelines), the only Google results I get are Knowledge (XXG) mirror sites. Thus

2230:

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

2061:

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

1644:

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

1227:

3283:

I also agree that the article title should include the diacretic. Who are we to invalidate the decision of the City Council? HOWEVER, even if there is no consensus to do so we should amend the official_name field of the city infobox to City of San José in order to reflect the actual official name of

2700:

Most of the city web page's content, as well as most media references, call it simply San Jose (without the accent) which seems to be the consensus spelling for this article, per discussion above. Since the city webpage uses the accent I would suggest that the official name in the citybox be changed

2556:

Is that true? California Constitution Article 11 Section 7 seems to suggest otherwise, which says, "SEC. 7. A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.", where, to my best understanding,

2350:

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

2267:

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

1173:

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

702:

The kind of text which should go in the article should be something which reads like an encyclopedia and flows like a single body of text. I removed the comment because it's what Wikipedians call "unencyclopedic". The article text is not the place to have a debate over content. However, I brought

193:

I didn't see this talk page entry until after I made my changes to the table. The reference for metro population doesn't match what's in the table. I think we should revert to the 2005 number there at least, unless someone has a reference for the larger number. Re the city population, it seems to

170:

The population numbers have been changed to reflect a population of more than 1 million people, but I have failed in finding any reliable source to back uip these changes, if anybody can help find it, then that would be great, (the user also changed SF's population to ~812k if that helps). Otherwise

3235:

On April 3, 1979, the San José City Council adopted San José, with the diacritical mark on the "e", as the spelling of the city name on the city seal, official stationery, office titles and department names. Also, by city council convention, this spelling of San José is used when the name is stated

2716:

The accented version (San José) is an official style of the city, approved by the City Council. It is used on letterhead, in most outreach, and on the website. However, the "official" name of the City in the charter is still unaccented. "ARTICLE I, INCORPORATION AND SUCCESSION, SECTION 100. Name.

2669:

The climate section also incorrectly lists the average annual temperature as 73 degrees Fahrenheit. This number is inconsistent with the data in the climate chart listed below. According to the chart the average annual high temperature is 72.6 degrees and the average annual low at 52.5. To find the

1785:

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;

1368:

911:

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

603:

Notice how the cities' populations all jumped by 25,000 to 30,000 from the 1999 estimate to the 2000 Census. Even with the dot-com boom (which would have affected SF and SJ, but not this much, and wouldn't have affected LB by nearly this much), this shows that the Census Bureau was under-estimating

488:

be using US Census data for population estimates and figures for the sake of consistency. As has been pointed out, local agencies such as the California department of finance are prone to making overly optimistic estimates regarding city populations, and using these figures when the majority of US

279:

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

258:

From my memory and the internet articles I could find, the Bean Spray Pump Company (forerunner to FMC) was founded in 1884, not 1883, and was actually founded in Los Gatos, moving to San Jose in 1903. If no one can contradict or provide any more information, I will edit that section and provide the

3591:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-context=st&-qr_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_S2001&-ds_name=ACS_2007_1YR_G00_&-CONTEXT=st&-tree_id=307&-keyword=San%20Jose,%20California&-redoLog=true&-_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=16000US0668000&-format=&-_lang=en

3490:

paragraph appear to be the correct ones, as per the US Census). Second, the table cites a non-US Census source, which shouldn't happen, all population numbers should be the official US Census. And third, isn't it a bit redundant to have the table, and then repeat the information in the paragraph?

3468:

It has been added in the introductory paragraph as: "The U.S. Census Bureau estimated the population of the city to be 1,015,785 as of July 1, 2014, making it the tenth U.S. city to reach a population of one million." This is technically incorrect; it is the 11th city to reach that mark as Detroit

2204:

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

2966:

Someone has uploaded a photo of a what they claim is police brutality at a march through San Jose in 1969. There is no attribution for the photo, no evidence that it was taken in San Jose, no evidence that it is indeed police brutality, and the photo is strangely placed next to paragraphs talking

2857:

Okay, so I was looking through the most populous metropolitan areas in the U.S., and I noticed that San Jose's simply redirected to this very article. However, all metropolitan areas that are in the top 50 in population, except for San Jose's, each have their own unique article, and do not simply

2640:

This just surprised me, being the opposite of my experience. It was always something that bothered me about living there (jacket and jeans cool in the morning, t-shirt and shorts heat by noon, back to jacket and jeans in the evening). No matter what I left the house wearing, I always wished I had

2335:

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

1096:

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

835:

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

395:

I am going to nominate this article for a review. This article is nowhere near featured article quality. Not enough references; refs aren't correctly formatted; there are entire sections that are lists; there is no media section; generally, the article would fail such a review as it is right now.

3888:

Hi. Take a look at the discussion at the top of the page (and thanks for engaging in discussion). Currently, the consensus is to not use the accent. To me, the biggest aspect is that this is English Knowledge (XXG), and English keyboards don't have the dialectic, so whenever someone types in San

509:

Although I agree with using a consistent source across all articles; I don't necessary believe that the Census Bureau's estimates are better, worse, or more or less biased than state or local agencies. A quick dive into the archives shows the Census Bureau estimates for cities like San Jose, San

1906:

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

1489:

88:

As far as I see it there are four problems with it, and all should be addressed: 1. Why is it under demographics, I guess it somewhat makes sense but is there a better place for this? 2. According to who/what is "San José is considered more secular in terms of religious belief"? 3. According to

3489:

Hi. There is a table which cites a non-US Census page as its source at the beginning of the section. Then the same information is repeated in the first paragraph. There are a few problems. First, the numbers in the table do not jive with the numbers in the paragraph (and the numbers in the

2588:

Cities without charters are governed by the California Government Code and other statutes--charter cities are not, at least not "with respect to municipal affairs". The thing is, the State gets to determine what is a "municipal affair" and what is of statewide interest, so local authority is

2500:

Just reading through the article, there are several places where the text refers to photos (or the map) that is nowhere near that section of the text. In the case of the lede to }Arts and architecture" I can't tell which photo the text is referring to . . . the Fedex plane? Point being, the

836:

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

609:

So, not to say that the State Dept. of Finance is going to be any more accurate, or that we shouldn't be using a consistent source from article to article, but remember that the Census Bureau estimates are just that - estimates, and have been proven to be less than accurate in the past.

3337:- San Jose, California would redirect to the page with the accented é. If it's the official name of the city, the Knowledge (XXG) article should reflect that. I also agree with those above, that the name with the accent should be used throughout the article in reference to the city.-- 2861:

San Jose's metropolitan is the 31st most populous in the United States (2011), and includes the counties of Santa Clara and San Benito. All metropolitan areas in the top 50, except for San Jose's, have their own unique article. That is why I am making this suggestion.

84:

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

2670:

average annual temperature one needs to take both day time highs and night time lows into account, which would place the yearly average in the 62-63 degree range. If only the afternoon high temperature is being looked at then this needs to be made explicitly clear.

1109:

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. :

948:

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.

2181:, 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 2274:

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?

2629:"Temperature fluctuations between night and day can vary as little as 10 °F (−12 °C) to 12 °F (a fluctuation range of 5.5 °C to 6.6 °C), meaning that its climate does not experience huge temperature drops or rises like some other parts of California." 2744:(actually a built up former redirect), to highlight the major sj articles on WP. ive modelled it after some navboxes for san fran and others. I dont think its redundant, and may provide a useful way to navigate sj, sort of like a portal or outline. 2014:

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.

1597:

3047:

and mentioned several times on that Knowledge (XXG) page. I modified the Sports section on San Jose's page to clarify the actual location. However, should the references to Levi's Stadium / 49'ers be removed entirely from the San Jose page?

1674:. 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 1257:. 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 2836:

After thinking about it I've gone ahead and removed "Shark City" as it seems almost impossible that this name has any currency outside of a hockey context. In its place I put the ancient American Indian name, "The Valley of Heart's Delight".

2820:

For now I left in place "Shark City" as a nickname, but I'm pretty dubious about this one. Is anyone familiar with this as a nickname for San Jose, in a non-hockey context? I'm pretty sure this is an addition by an overzealous Sharks fan.

1195:

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. :

2138:

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

2469:

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. :

1770:

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?

1353:

963:

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. :)

2696:

The citybox lists the official name of the city as "El Pueblo de San José de Guadalupe". That may be its historic name, but it does not appear to be its current name. The city's web page calls it the "City of San José" (with the

2759:

I like it. However, it highlighted an error in the SJC article. "Memorial" is not part of the full name of the airport--Mineta is not dead yet. I looked at the first two refs and it isn't in either the City's site or the FAA

3193:. It's more difficult to tell recently, because owners don't care about their cities of license anymore, so they minimize any city name that has a more dominant city near it (e.g. "San Francisco" or "San Francisco / Oakland"). 623:

US Census estimates are notoriously conservative and they have been for some time - I believe this is intentional. I did not mean to imply that they were especially accurate - my whole point was simply about being consistent.

2366:

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).

3219:] of 1965, which says "shall continue ... under its present name of “City of San Jose.”". So the city's website may be more the result of a single 1979 city council vote rather than natural common usage by normal people. -- 2632:

I can't really tell where this piece of information is from, however as somebody who lived in San Jose for 20 years, I can say that large, not small, temperature fluctuations are characteristic of the city. Summer days will

2552:

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

819:

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?

1863:

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

1446:

1017:, 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. 483:

I have switched the population in the infobox back to the official US Census estimate. It is lower than the preceeding figure by a nontrivial amount. As has been stated above (multiple times), US city articles

1856:

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

1439:

2891: 1076:{{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. 3606: 1750:

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

1333:

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

2917:

In view of the city of Stockton recently filing for bankruptcy, I found it interesting that the top San Jose employers are taxpayer funded. Clearly the city has become government "top heavy".

3380:

should be used for the great majority of this article. The accent should be used if it is quoted, or if the the text is referring to the early Spanish settlement or the city council decision.

933:

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.

323:

The Media section contains sprawling lists (Television and Radios sub-sections) that do not belong to the main article. Either create a separate list and/or rewrite this section. I'd put the

698:

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

1907:

either. People like Loodog with their non compromise attitudes are what make Knowledge (XXG) not credible as a source. Just list both numbers and reference them and the reader can decide.

1490:

either. People like Loodog with their non compromise attitudes are what make Knowledge (XXG) not credible as a source. Just list both numbers and reference them and the reader can decide.

4271: 1830:

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.

1413:

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.

2246:{{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. : --> 2858:

redirect to the main city of that area. So my suggestion is, instead of redirecting the San Jose metropolitan area to this article, should a new article altogether be created for it?

1832:

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

1415:

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

2520:

can I add The Ugly Truth film as a refrence? In the movie it says that Mike Chadway (male protagonist) is from San Jose State University. Its not much but I want to add it in.

2231:

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. --

1859:

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

1442:

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

194:

me that the more recent US DOF estimate is more likely to be accurate today than the older census number, but it's ok with me if the consensus is to stick with census data. --

3881:

Ahh! Ok, I didn't read that, but I think that the correct name is San José, because that's how appear in the official city website and in the Seal. What's your opinion about?

3509:

The citation for San Jose being a global city is from 2008, before the economic collapse. I can't find any post-2008 citations, so unless someone can, we should remove this.

2211:

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...

1840:

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

1423:

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

438:

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

3140: 651:

I'm proposing the creation of an article about the US Market Access Center, an incubator in Downtown San Jose. As it is one of the four incubators started as part of the

4451: 4447: 4433: 4311: 4307: 4293: 4133: 4129: 4115: 3985: 3981: 3967: 3804: 3800: 3786: 3656: 3652: 3638: 2377:

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.

3177:

I haven't found any evidence of English-language TV stations using an accent on the name. TV stations with San Jose in their branding have not used the accent: see

2717:

The City of San Jose, in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, shall continue to be a municipal corporation under its present name of “City of San Jose.”"

3024:

to peer review. i would welcome any comments. i believe it is fully ready for featured portal status, but i have been just about the only editor there for a while.

3607:

https://web.archive.org/20080211114946/http://www.cand.uscourts.gov:80/CAND/FAQ.nsf/840afa494a77a59388256d4e007d54ff/de9a30b748bc1e5388256ebc0055acf4?OpenDocument

2637:

have 30 degree or larger fluctuations between day and night. It has caught many of my friends from the midwest off guard how quickly and drastically it changes.

1786:

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.

1369:

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.

1966: 1851: 1549: 1434: 3610: 2207:

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

2271:

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)

92:

I hope that answers to these questions can be brought forward, or at least if not, a valid justification as to why we should keep the statement there. --

4251: 929:

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

4272:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090207014810/http://www.weather.com/activities/other/other/weather/climo-monthly-graph.html?locid=USCA0993&from=search

4083: 345:

I don't know how to edit this but I think something should be added about Hyphy music, or at least mention that San Jose is part of "The Yay Area."

1754:

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.

1337:

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.

4275: 3596: 3576: 2372: 4261: 4241: 2944: 4073: 2536: 2114: 1142: 230:

I found this website claiming that san jose is one of americas fattest cities and not sure if it should be included in here and where if so.

4399: 4221: 3864:- The consensus is that the article should be named without the accent. Please stop your disruptive editing. See the top of this talk page. 3147:

in general) is that we use the name that is most commonly used in English. (This is not necessarily the "most English" name: for example, "

3388:

guideline might provide guidance here as it describes the use of special characters; there ought to be a similar guideline for California.

3243: 3002: 663:

itself, but that is a different discussion). I should disclose my COI on the matter, however, as I am currently an employee of the US MAC.

604:

through the 1990s. Unless the Census Bureau's methodology has changed, there's no reason to think they're not under-estimating now as well.

376: 359:

The history section is painfully too long and need to be split into its own article. Its length is seriously detracting from the article.--

3764: 4231: 1041:

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

4524: 3616: 3338: 3124: 2974: 2790: 2677: 2454:

On the Taylor Street Bridge, (the bridge that connects W Taylor Street & 87) has a view of the skyline and is open to pedestrians --

1990: 1573: 1097:

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? -

786: 774: 727: 456: 71: 59: 2947:

be added to this Colleges & University section on this wikipedia page? It's a private, non-profit university in Downtown San Jose.

207:

Oops, sorry, it's the CA DOF, not the US DOF. Well, I still think it's a better source, but like I say, I'll go with the consensus. --

3285: 3055: 2924: 2809:

I removed "the Shark Tank" from the list of city nicknames. "The Shark Tank" is not a nickname for the city; it's a nickname for the

2022: 1605: 4539: 3454: 2878: 2316: 965: 369:

There is nothing in the historical record to substantiate a claim that the English visited the San Jose area prior to the Spanish.

1944:, and (3) accuracy. Additionally, particularly in this case and California, there's another reason: these are numbers used by the 1527:, and (3) accuracy. Additionally, particularly in this case and California, there's another reason: these are numbers used by the 2967:

about San Jose in the 1850s. For the lack of attribution, fact-free editorializing, and misplace meant, I am removing the photo.

2368: 3754: 3428: 3421: 2898:

which is a much more appropriate location, considering there is little actual separation, other than political borders, from the

1913: 1675: 1496: 1258: 3215:

mentions (unsourced) a 1979 city ordinance to direct the use of the accent mark in text and the seal, but the overriding law is

1728:

Once again, read my previous answer carefully: you all (not personally you, but "you watchdogs of this page") are reading from

1311:

Once again, read my previous answer carefully: you all (not personally you, but "you watchdogs of this page") are reading from

687: 3945: 3451: 1983:

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

1566:

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

869: 3197: 2895: 2701:

to "City of San José." But I don't see any justification for listing the historic name in the citybox as the official name --

1854:

on the WP:USCITY talk page indicates that the article body was changed specifically to allow inclusion of local agency data.

1437:

on the WP:USCITY talk page indicates that the article body was changed specifically to allow inclusion of local agency data.

3021: 2741: 660: 2431:

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

1710:

Sorry, for the glib nature of the reversion, but this has been discussed in the past, and has been resolved similarly on

1293:

Sorry, for the glib nature of the reversion, but this has been discussed in the past, and has been resolved similarly on

3611:

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/CAND/FAQ.nsf/840afa494a77a59388256d4e007d54ff/de9a30b748bc1e5388256ebc0055acf4?OpenDocument

3155:" are English Knowledge (XXG) article titles.) It seems to me that most people use "San Jose" without the accent mark: 3091: 3063: 2657: 4093: 3744: 3308: 2564:

Would be great if someone could clarify this. Otherwise I'll be making the change to reflect my understanding. Thanks.

297:

If anyone has more time than me, the demographics section is lacking a population by year table like that found in the

236:

I actually found that San Jose is one of the more fitter cities. The link you provided was outdated, and I found this

2356: 1163: 4527:, at which the city article's title, and the unilateral removal of the diacritic from it, are also under discussion. 4252:

http://web.archive.org/web/20141017200148/http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/19/5509860/mark-purdy-san-jose-takes-big.html

3353: 3170: 2899: 753: 107: 38: 3264: 1648:

Unless you stop knee-jerk reverting and start talking, I will request sanctions against what looks like a feat of

1231:

Unless you stop knee-jerk reverting and start talking, I will request sanctions against what looks like a feat of

4084:

https://web.archive.org/20080402153817/http://www.sanjoseca.gov:80/development/developmentcenter/second_floor.asp

3029: 2749: 762: 690:

with a population over 300,000, and currently has the highest median income of any city with over 225,000 people.

47: 17: 4450:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

4310:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

4132:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3984:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3803:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3655:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3315:" key, it's probably fine as is, but IMO the accent should be noted/used where ever possible in the article. -- 3006: 2993:

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

2532: 1138: 1022: 4255: 3247: 2102: 1868:

Please advise me via my talk-page if you require any clarification and I will be happy to add further comment.

1451:

Please advise me via my talk-page if you require any clarification and I will be happy to add further comment.

380: 4276:

http://www.weather.com/activities/other/other/weather/climo-monthly-graph.html?locid=USCA0993&from=search

3597:

https://web.archive.org/20080401165425/http://www.sanjoseca.gov:80/esd/natural-energy-resources/gb-policy.htm

3577:

https://web.archive.org/20060702090656/http://www.sanjoseca.gov:80/planning/counter/policies/pol_lighting.pdf

3342: 2978: 2794: 2681: 1736:

section only. Will you care to re-read the guideline yourself or shall I cut and paste a piece from it here?

1319:

section only. Will you care to re-read the guideline yourself or shall I cut and paste a piece from it here?

460: 4262:

http://web.archive.org/web/20111117201046/http://www.accuweather.com/us/ca/san-jose/95113/forecast-month.asp

4242:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050414060633/http://www.sjredevelopment.org/101204/5-1DowntownTheaterUpdate.pdf

3304: 3289: 3128: 3059: 3044: 2928: 2399:

So I was playing with photoshop and--yes, I know I shouldn't be posting my pictures like this--came up with

2026: 1994: 1609: 1577: 731: 244: 3458: 3403:

but there are not enough subjects to warrant creating a separate California-related MOS page at this time.

3381: 3357: 3239: 3144: 3120: 3051: 2970: 2920: 2866: 2786: 2673: 2645: 2524: 2312: 2018: 1986: 1601: 1569: 1208: 1130: 1013:

in references to the city or to organizations that spell it without the accent. I have changed the name to

986: 969: 723: 473: 464: 452: 372: 349: 337: 4087: 4074:

https://web.archive.org/20070927042843/http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/data/build_permit_hist/table1.asp

2528: 2352: 1917: 1500: 1159: 1134: 403: 237: 4400:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120514145814/http://www.sanjoseca.gov/cityManager/pdf/AnnualReport03-04.pdf

4222:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110504231808/http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/data/fact_sheet/FactSheet.pdf

2098: 1933: 1516: 4536: 4489: 4469:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

4457: 4349: 4329:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

4317: 4171: 4151:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

4139: 4023: 4003:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3991: 3842: 3822:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3810: 3694: 3674:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3662: 3393: 3182: 3160: 2874: 2720:. Almost all media references to the city use the unaccented version, as does the State of California.-- 2320: 212: 199: 157: 3765:

https://web.archive.org/20060822225404/http://www.sanjoseca.gov:80/budget/FY0607/ProposedCapital/28.pdf

2182: 2093:

sides, perspective shots of tract suburban housing. There's potentially a good history shot or two in

872:

and such. Hopefully i'll have the time to help do that in the future, my wrist hella hurts right now.

346: 4232:

http://web.archive.org/web/20080419082650/http://www.mostlivable.org:80/general/san-jos-city-home.html

4077: 3861: 3600: 2870: 2653: 636: 501: 489:

city articles use the census data is creating a misleading impression about the size of these cities.

283:

If we get hit with another wave of vandalism, this article may require indefinite semi-protection. --

4424: 4371: 4265: 4245: 4193: 4045: 3917: 3716: 3617:

https://web.archive.org/20120514145814/http://www.sanjoseca.gov/cityManager/pdf/AnnualReport03-04.pdf

3548: 3474: 3470: 3324: 3224: 3212: 3088: 3025: 2745: 2501:

placement of the photos, or text directing readers to look all over the page, should be coordinated.

980: 976: 938: 934: 611: 266: 3186: 2952: 2907: 2842: 2826: 2506: 2194: 2186: 1018: 901: 668: 306: 4225: 3580: 1937: 1833: 1821: 1729: 1667: 1520: 1416: 1404: 1312: 1250: 873: 4403: 3620: 3495: 3178: 2706: 2649: 2476: 2441: 2409: 2385: 2299: 2252: 2219: 2149: 2071: 2046: 1629: 1202: 1183: 1116: 1065: 805: 799:

Any ideas on how to write up the landmarks section without it being a big, huge, ugly list? : -->

470: 327: 240: 4454: