Talk:San Jose, California/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Why I reverted addition to Category Coastal cities

The page Category:Coastal cities includes in it's description that a city must have a port capable of handling international vessels. San Jose has no shipping activity at all, and the Marina at Alviso is often silted up and uselsess for presonal watercraft. Gentgeen 20:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Featured quality?

I've looked over the other featured articles about cities, and while I don't think this article is perfect yet, the quality of this article equals or exceeds those, in my opinion. Anyone else want to weigh in on this before I nominate it? Gentgeen 02:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it's worth a shot. Elf | Talk 06:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, the fact that the article spent a day on the main page (as a selected anniversary) and didn't generate a single edit is a good measure that there's nothing obviously wrong with the article. Just to get more eyes on the article, I'm going to go through peer review before nominating it. Gentgeen 02:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Logo, seal, and flag

City Logo

150px|thumb|City Flag

File:Sj city seal.jpg City Seal

The convention in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities is to include the Flag and Seal in the info box. However, as San Jose's seal is included as part of the flag, I think it would be better to include the flag and the city logo in the info box. Any other opinions? I've included the three images so everyone can see them. Gentgeen 22:29, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just put the logo in later in the article. Probably better to stick with convention. Wouldn't surprise me if lots of places included the seal on the flag. Elf | Talk 22:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Salmon and "major" US cities

I've removed "The river is the home to the only known salmon spawning run through a major U.S. downtown area, although the salmon run in the Duwamish River in Seattle runs through the Industrial District adjacent to Downtown Seattle." because I think the first part needs to define "major" (probably more narrowly than many people would) more specifically. Seattle and Portland, both in the top 30 by population, have salmon runs thru their downtowns. I think many people think of most or all of the top 25 as "major".

Official spelling (San Jose vs. San José)

The article states, "In the 1970s, the city council officially adopted San José as the spelling for the city name...". The city charter contradicts this (http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Charter.htm#Art1). What is the source for this information?

I lived here then. :-) WOuld be nice to find a reference for it, though, you're right. At the time it was a big news item (as in: wasn't it already spelled that way? Can you legislate language? or--this is america, not mexico--and all the expenses it would take to reprint all the stationery and everything). Seems to me that it went on for several days with discussions about the implications of the resolution. It's possible that it was revoked later--but you can still see that the city is ambivalent about it by looking through their web site and seeing the spellings--although the accented version is predominant. Elf | Talk 02:59, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Still looking--but in browsing the Municipal Code, I see that they're using the accented version. Elf | Talk 03:05, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is a source: San Jose Mercury News (CA) February 15, 1996 Section: Living Edition: Morning Final Page: 2E Section:ACTION LINE Title: INCONSISTENCY ACCENTED BY SAN JOSE AND SAN JOSE Author: Andy Bruno

"Rosemary O'Kane, airport spokeswoman, says the city council passed the directive on April 3, 1979, mandating the use of the official city seal (grapevines and sheaf of wheat) on all vehicles, letterheads, stationery and business cards. That same mandate directed the seal be changed to San Jose (with the accent mark and San Jose printed on all stationery supplies, which include the City of San Jose in its preprinted title. O'Kane says this directive had no bearing on any public signs, so the current airport signs without the accent are correct." Seitz 05:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good work; thanks! I tried calling the city's information line and got nowhere (the person kept referring me back to the web site). I was going to try calling again later, but this pretty much clears it up. Elf | Talk 07:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Article title

Shouldn't the title of the article be "San José, California" instead of "San Jose, California"? I'm somewhat picky about naming articles properly, and since the article itself says that the name is San José, it seems that the title should reflect that. --Cswrye 01:11, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I dunno. Maybe you have a point. The only problem, then, is that nearly every search for this article would have to go through a redirect, since the vast majority of keyboards used in the English-speaking world don't have that "e" with the little mark above it. But many Wikipedia articles are often accessed through redirects anyway. Does anyone monitoring this article know the current WP policy on such things? --Coolcaesar 03:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I was trying to say when I got an edit conflict :-) -- This is a weird one. The city council adopted the name San José but apparently not for use in all cases, just for some official city issues. The city charter was not amended to change it from San Jose to San José. Signs in San José mostly do not have the accent mark. Their web site is a hodge podge of sometimes with, sometimes without. I'd dare say that 99.9% of the residents spell it without the accent. So--*I* spell it with the accent (usually if I'm thinking of it), but it would be hard to make a case as to which was the "correct" spelling in all cases because even San José doesn't define it for all cases! Elf | Talk 03:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We did a lot of talking of this subject at Talk:San José State University a while ago. Most or all of the points brought up there a year ago or more still apply. Gentgeen 04:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK/IMHO, the 'common names' policy is generally considered paramount, especially vs. what any entity 'wants' to be called. I can't speak for other countries, but at least in the US, English speakers almost NEVER use any accents, since English doesn't generally have any. I think virtually all articles on the EN version of Wikipedia should be sans [ ;) ] accents, with the only exceptions I can think of off the top of my head being some brandnames that are only every seen with accents, such as Nescafé. AFAIAC, Cesar Chavez, SJSU, and others should be changed to the common names. I lived in SJ briefly, and never used the accent. Also, I should point out that Montreal and Quebec used to have accents in the article titles, but both lost them per the common names policy. SJ has the further argument that the city has defined the name with the accent in only very limited circumstances. So, all-in-all, I firmly believe the article is at the proper title, without accents. As far as the article text in the intro, if I remember correctly, it was mostly all without accents, other than the info about the council adopting the accent in certain cases, but gradually IPs have come along and changed each non-accented version to the accented version. Prefering a 'live and let live' attitude, I haven't reverted them, but if it starts causing problems I'll probably switch them back. Niteowlneils 07:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm generally inclined to think that for proper names, the name used by the person or institution should be the one used. I think I remember reading the Wikipedia policy a while back, but I don't remember exactly what it said. In any case, I noticed that this same debate happened on this page a while back, and the official name of the city does seem to be San Jose (although the city council does use San José in limited circumstances). That being the case, I would say that the title should remain as it is, but if so, the name should be changed to San Jose throughout the article as well.

Actually, our policy is most common name, not the name some government has told us to use. See, for example, Talk:Kiev. Gentgeen 00:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. In particular, for the specific matter of naming city articles, the "most common name" policy was confirmed last year with a large poll. This part of the policy is pretty well set in stone and is not likely to be changed any time in the forseeable future (thankfully). See Wikipedia:Naming policy poll. Nohat 01:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kiev/Kyiv is an entirely different matter because the two spellings are completely different. All we're talking about here is the use of a diacritic or not. I've moved the page to use the diacritic as that's how the city does it. howcheng {chat} 17:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The city government actually uses both spellings, apparently interchangably. For example, see the official city home page, and the link from there to the municipal code.

I think the title not use the diacritic, based on two criteria:

1. Popularity: The "San Jose" spelling is still more common than "San José"

2. Official: The City Charter still says:

SECTION 100. Name.

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

-- Seitz 03:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Agree to leave as San Jose, and I'm the one who pointed out that the city uses the accented version way back when anyway. And I thought that's what the larger number of editors here indicated, anyway, reading above. Elf | Talk 04:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, my bad. I moved it back. howcheng {chat} 17:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Elf | Talk 17:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please can we just leave it as San Jose, California? It seems like this gets renamed every few weeks. Would it make sense to do a move protect? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

accent?.

Seeing as how the entire article has been changed from San Jose to San José, though the latter is now a redirect to the former, what exactly should we do? I personally prefer San Jose, since it's only on official documents and buildings and on the SJCC sign where the accent exists. But that's just me. What does everyone else think? -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 03:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, "only on official documents and buildings" -- even if true, it would seem to suggest that the correct, encyclopedic usage is with the diacritic. But truth be told, the accented name is also used by a number of organizations in the city with San José in their name, such as the Library and the Opera, aside from the San José State University: Do a Google search on the accented name. It's one thing to keep the article at "San Jose" because it is a most common usage, and quite another to systematically eradicate "San José" from the article, especially given the consistent and pervasive "San José" usage on the official webpage of the city. -- Mareklug ^talk 16:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Library is a government agency of the City, with the main branch being a joint project between the city and SJSU, so it's not really another group one form or another. Even in the government, city agencies are not consistent in the use or not of the accent mark; the police department uses one form, while the fire department uses another. In the non-government arena, the Opera does use the "é", but the San Jose Sharks and the San Jose Mercury News do not, and both are much more well known in and outside of San Jose than the Opera is. For every example of one version cited, one can be found to support the other argument. As our policy is to use common names in English, we should attempt to determine what is the most common use, and then be consistent with that decision, while documenting the issue. Gentgeen 00:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I went to the official website for San José [1] and asked the following question using their feedback form: Hello. Why does the graphic "City of San Jose Capital of Silicon Valley 10th Largest U.S. City" on your web page (the one in the upper right corner) not have an accent mark in "San Jose"? I am a big fan of consistency. If we are to write San Jose with an accent mark, why don't *you* do it consistently? (Here is a link to at least one page with the graphic I am taking about: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/feedback.html) Yours, -- Marek Lugowski.

I got the following reply in email: This is because the City's usage standards specify that we only use the accent when the city's name is spelled out in upper and lower case. When it is only in upper case (such as in that logo) we do not use the accent. You will find that this usage is consistent throughout the website.

I think as Wikipedia editors, we owe it to the facts of the case and make sure it says "San José" in these two places in the article: The first mention in emboldened text and the infobox at the top of the article where it says "official name=". Given what the city says is the name of the city, these two locations in the article should reflect the correct official name. Anything less than that is abandoning our responsibility as Wikipedia editors to report accurately the truth in favor of going with the popular. -- Mareklug ^talk 05:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to say that only those two should be refered to as "San José," or at least one of two (preferably the one over the infobox), since it is the official name. Otherwise, common usage should be used. (I think this was a big deal at some point. I don't quite remember.) -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 07:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that "San José" with the accent is the "official" name. The "usage standards" may say "San José", but the city charter says the name of the city is "San Jose". And a city spokesman said either may be correct, depending on the situation (see the San Jose Mercury News article I cited above). Given all this ambiguity, it seems to me the highest authority on what is the "official" name is the city charter, and the city charter does not use the accent. --Seitz 18:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Despite the claim from the web site maintainer, there are still plenty of examples on the city web site of "San Jose" without the accent when the name is spelled in mixed case. Just do a Google search for "San Jose site:sanjoseca.gov". --Seitz 19:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Your search - "San Jose site:sanjoseca.gov" - did not match any documents. -- that's what Google told me. I really don't know why the city charter would not have the accent -- maybe it never uses any by default, or maybe it is an error, or maybe it is a stale document version you are seeing. You're dismissing the fact that the city represents itself as having "San José". The person who replied to me was not the web site maintainer, but a city representative, and she signed with her name, title, and the line "City of San José", which ironically, didn't render on my computer in any reasonable way, only as a "City of San Jos?". :) I still think we should have San José in the infobox and as the first occurence in the article, given that a live human working for the city and representing it to the public told me so, as opposed to my divining from some web cruft. -- Mareklug ^talk 05:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

P.s. The city tries hard to represent itself as "City of San José", but true to any human endeavor, it is rife with inconsistencies. We should not hold them as proof of this or that for the purposes of gathering and presenting information on Wikipedia. The omission of the é in San José may be on account of mistakes, or wilful dislike of the accent or cost associated with correcting such an omission. The Municipal Code copy which does not have accents in it is a privately prepared document with a disclaimer that it is not official and that its formatting differes from that of the latest official version. Etc., etc. I am suspecting that a good deal of opposition to the é in San José is ideological and partisan in nature, and does not reflect an impartial desire to render Wikipedia accurate. It pains me to evidently encounter ideology and anglo- or Spanish-favoring POV behind this editorial dispute. -- Mareklug ^talk 05:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry I wasn't clear about the Google search. The quotation marks should not be entered as part of the search. Here is the URL for the search: "http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=San+Jose+site%3Asanjoseca.gov&btnG=Google+Search". But I agree, this does not prove anything about the "official" status of the accent.

It is only within recent years that the city government has begun using the accent when displaying the name of the city. This was an editorial decision to use the accent, and only in particular situations. It was not a change to the city charter. This editorial policy has changed over time. For example, the city for a time was using the accent even when the name was printed in all capital letters. For example, see the picture of the city seal in the infobox. It was then pointed out to the city government that normal Spanish usage says the accent is used only over a lower case "e", not the upper case "E". So the editorial policy was changed again to use the accent only over the lower case "e".

This kind of editorial decision is similar to a decision that a particular font might be used when displaying the name. It does not change the city charter, which contains the "official" name of the city.

If using the accent was the clear, unambiguous, and only "official" spelling, then that is what the city representative quoted in the San Jose Mercury News article should have said. Instead, the representative said the spelling without the accent on the airport sign was valid.

I have no personal objection to using the accent in the city name. I simply want to be accurate. If we can find a better source of the city charter text that says the name should be spelled with an accent, then I would be happy to display that as the "official name". So far, the evidence I have seen is that the city government has recently chosen to display the city name with an accent in certain circustances. In other circumstances, the original spelling, without an accent, has been retained.

Perhaps you could ask the city representative who responded to you about the status of the accent in the city charter? -- Seitz 20:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's another example of the city's ambiguity over the "official" status of the accent.

San Jose Mercury News (CA) July 12, 1995, Edition: Morning Final, Section: Local, Page: 1B, NEW DAWN FOR CITY SEAL?, Author: SCOTT HERHOLD, Mercury News Staff Writer:

"Will the accent remain?

But change hasn't been completely smooth: Not the least of the dilemmas is whether to continue to use the accent mark above the 'e' in San Jose, a reminder of the city's Spanish roots.

The old city seal has used it since 1979, when it was added after an earlier fight over the city's emblem. The new logo does not use it.

Stone says this is primarily a grammatical decision. In Spanish, the accent isn't used with capital letters - though the old seal broke that rule.

This has stirred some comment in the Hispanic community. 'I think the city ought to continue with the tradition of using the accent,' said Pete Carrillo, the president of the Mexican Heritage Corp.

'We would certainly be open if there was general sentiment that the accent was needed,' Stone said, acknowledging that there were cultural reasons for it."

-- Seitz 20:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's not in the City charter, then it's not official, even if the city officially uses it. The inconsistancy is the current city government's doing, and not historical. It's not wiki's job to make one way or the other official. Using the accent should be limited to official titles that are officially listed that way, but not to the city's name, which was never officially changed. This inconsistancy isn't wiki's job to sort out.Fcsuper 17:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Email to City of San José requesting clarification as to the status of the official name (accent or no accent) in the city charter

Well. I just sent the following email to the city representative who initially replied to me as quoted in the section above. -- Mareklug ^talk 05:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, which I quote below with your quote of my original inquiry.

Actually, looking through the website I find that the usage is mixed -- some of the time there is an accent in San Jose, and some of the time there is no accent.

Specifically, in the City Charter, which I found under:

http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/charter.asp#Art1

...there is no accent, including where the name of the city is defined:

SECTION 100. Name.

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

Furthermore, performing a Google search within the website with the words San Jose *does* show a mixed usage.

To see this, type into Google search box:

San Jose site:www.sanjoseca.gov

So, my question remains -- what is the official name of the city? And now I ask, what is the name as specified by the City Charter?

The question came up as part of editing Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. See the entry for the city:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose%2C_California

Currently the entry does not have the accent for the first half of its rather long entry, and then the accent picks up, although the fact that the city adopted the accent in 1979 is noted in the introductory section.

And see the associated discussion (click on the tab at the top marked "discussion" and choose from the Contents table, below, the section marked "5 Official spelling (San Jose vs. San Jose'):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ASan_Jose%2C_California#Official_spelling_.28San_Jose_vs._San_Jos.C3.A9.29

I would appreciate your clarification as to the official status of the name, and the status of it in the charter.

Finally, I invite you to edit the City's entry in the Wikipedia, and to participate in the discussion there to clarify the issue.

Thank you,

-- Marek Lugowski

On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 08:11:09AM -0800, you wrote:

> This is because the City's usage standards specify that we only use the
> accent when the city's name is spelled out in upper and lower case.  When it
> is only in upper case (such as in that logo) we do not use the accent.  You
> will find that this usage is consistent throughout the website.
(signature witheld)

>> Comments = Hello. Why does the graphic "City of San Jose Capital of Silicon
>> Valley 10th Largest U.S. City" on your web page (the one in the upper right
>> corner) not have an accent mark in "San Jose"? I am a big fan of
>> consistency. If we are to write San Jose with an accent mark, why don't
>> *you* do it consistently? (Here is a link to at least one page with the
>> graphic I am taking about: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/feedback.html)
>> Yours,               -- Marek Lugowski 

I will summarise the response, if any. -- Mareklug ^talk 05:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The responses I received:

Thank you for your comments and the things you pointed out... The City did officially adopt the accent but I see we may not be consistent. I'm forwarding this string of emails (by way of cc) to our Public Outreach Manager.

Followed by the following responses from the Public Outreach Manager:

In the 1990's, the City Council approved a policy directing the accent be used. The directive to use the accent over a lower case "e" in "San Jose," however, refers to the City of San José organization and is not meant to be a change to the City's place name as it would be noted on a map. We try to use it consistently when referring to the City organization, however as you've pointed out, we sometimes fall short of a perfect standard. I hope this explanation helps you understand our policy.

Followed by the the manager's second response:

If you are talking about the name of the place e.g. how it would be referred to on a map, etc. it would be without the accent. You can make an é with any windows-based computer by holding down the "alt" key and entering "0233" on the number key pad.

So far, I have not received a reply to my follow-up to the manager's 2nd response, where I restated my question concerning the name in the City Charter. -- Mareklug ^talk 19:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is very interesting information. Thank you for pursuing this. It clarifies that there are two distinct entities: a geographic region called "San Jose" (without the accent) and a government for that region. The city government is a municipal corporation that is called "City of San Jose", and the government prefers to have its name printed with an accent. The remaining question is whether the official name of the government contains the accent. -- Seitz 05:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this makes it quite clear (as if it weren't already) that the only appropriate place to use the accent mark in this article is in the part that discusses that the city government uses the accent mark. The city is San Jose, not San José. Nohat 06:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You overcompensated in your ensuing edits to the article, removing the accent from all mentions of San José State University and of the airport, which, under their official names, contain the accent. The airport is part of the city government. And, the university consistently uses the accent, as is evidenced from their official logo, their web pages and their Wikipedia article. -- Mareklug ^talk 23:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The accent is only used when é is lowercase? It may be true on the website, but the city isn't consistent about this in all places—my garbage cart clearly says "PROPERTY OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSÉ". ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 21:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the city government at one time used the accent on the upper case "e". For example, see the city seal. This was part of an attempt by the city government to reflect the Spanish origin of the name "San Jose", by adding an accent to the "e". Unfortunately, it was later pointed out that Spanish only uses the accent on the lower case "e", not upper case. At that point, the city changed its policy and began using the accent only on lower case "e". This points out just how mercurial and arbitrary the city government has been about using the accent in the city name. -- Seitz 00:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Official name" in infobox

I noticed that the "Official Name" field in the infobox has been changed back to "City of San José". We have had long discussions on the correct spelling of the official name, without coming to a clear answer. Can we come to some consensus on this, or at least take a vote, so that we don't keep changing this? -- Seitz 08:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The most appropriate way to write the name of the city

San José is the most appropriate way to write the name of the city because it sticks to its original name. San José is also correct phonetically because without the accent it would sound like san jOse. San José is a Spanish name and follows the rules of phonetics for the Spanish language. San José should always be written as San José, even by people who do not speak Spanish. This article should be reworked accordingly.

ICE77 -- 88.107.51.84 19:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

from [2]

"San Jo·se" city W California SSE of San Francisco population 894,943.

There is also an entry with the diacritical mark, though that's one is for Costa Rica. I'm sure historically, it originally had the accent mark, but since correctness is defined by popular usage, "San Jose" is no more incorrect to write than "Detroit" (in place of Détroit).--Loodog 19:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an old debate, and I've moved this latest discussion to be with the earlier discussion. The evidence thus far seems to be that the modern, English name of the city as a geographic location is without the accent. Some local organizations, including the city government, do use the accent in their names. But even the city government says that the name of the city as it would appear on a map does not use the accent.

This issue seems to have come up on other city articles. My understanding is that the accepted standard on Wikipedia is to use either the most popular spelling or the "official" spelling, not necessarily the original spelling. -- Seitz 00:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we address this in the article? It is again saying the official spelling is with the diacritical mark. This is only half right, since it depends on how it is used. Sometimes San Jose is correct, and sometimes San Jose with the mark is correct. Both instances should be addressed in order to kill this topic from coming up over and over. Fcsuper 01:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Suing france

new addition on page says that ...sued france... about the eiffel tower, but it doesn't say who: city of San Jose? descendant of original designer? Elf | Talk 02:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The city of San Jose, according to [3] and [4], which I've added to the article. Niteowlneils 22:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Police shooting details

The law and government section contains detailed descriptions of some specific, recent police shootings. Could we shorten this and make it more general by just including the current sentence "However, reports of police brutality have become more common.", followed by a list of references?

"Police brutality" is a little overused, but something along the lines you're suggesting is probably better than, as you say, one recent ongoing news story. Elf | Talk 05:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I removed the details of the incidents, leaving just the references. I left in the term "police brutality" since that was what the original author wrote. Seitz 05:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Election information

I edited the information about city elections:

• replaced the dates of the next council and mayoral elections with the dates when the current system began. That way the information doesn't have to be updated every two years.
• clarified the term limits to reflect that they only limit successive terms.
• moved information about the current vacancy in the office of Vice-Mayor to the "Current Leaders" article.
• replaced the date of the next Vice-Mayoral election with a description of when each election takes place, again to avoid having to update the article after each election. Seitz 06:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good job. Elf | Talk 09:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Building height limit

Found this informative paragraph in a recommendation to increase the height limit for a small area[5]:

The General Plan Transportation Policies state that development in the vicinity of airports should be regulated in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration guidelines. The Airport Land Use Commission height restriction for buildings in this area is 208 feet above mean sea level. Buildings proposed to be constructed at or above this elevation could pose an aviation safety hazard. The ground surface of the subject site is measured at 33 to 38 feet above mean sea level. Therefore, the proposed project to develop structures up to 150 feet in height would not exceed the 208-foot height restriction and would be consistent with the Airport Land Use Commission height restriction and the General Plan Transportation Policies. The Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) did review the proposed project to increase the maximum allowable building height to 150 feet and noted that the project site is located outside the ALUC referral boundary for the North San Jose Airport and therefore, had no comments regarding theproject

However, then I found this article [6], which seems to say that there is no height limit and that many structures are much taller than what's discussed above. Guess I could always call San Jose and see whether I could find someone who knows...

Elf | Talk 18:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) (in San Jose)

Climate

There should probably be a climate section--seems to be a common part of both print city articles and Wikipedia city articles. I will probably try to write one someday if no one else does, but it would probably be more informative if written by someone who's been in the area longer than me (5 years). Niteowlneils 00:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Based on my many years of experience, the climate has two seasons: dust (hills are golden) and mud (hills are green). Or were you looking for something a little more, um, scientific? :-) Elf | Talk 01:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

LOL, um probably, although being a native of Seattle, where there are four distinct seasons (well, I suppose autumn and winter are often pretty similar), I would be inclined to concur with your summary. Ah, I see you've already done it. Thanks. Niteowlneils 01:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stick map

Based on this map (a screenshot of a pdf at the SC County site, our stick map seems to be incorrect. It most closely matches the "Urban Service Area", least matches the "Sphere of Influence", and mostly matches the incorporated area except in the southeast corner. Before it's fixed (probably by someone other than me, as I have zero expertise in computer graphics), we should be sure which we want to use. I assume the Wikipedia standard is usually the incorporated area, but since the terms "Urban Service Area" and "Sphere of Influence" are unfamiliar to me, I don't know for sure. Anybody know if they are CA-specific, SCC-specific, everywhere-but-Seattle-specific, or what? Niteowlneils 02:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where those terms Urban Service Area and Sphere of Influence come from. As far as I know, the only distinction made in California law, as far as cities are concerned, is between incorporated cities and unincorporated land, which defaults to the control of a county. All parts of the state's land must be part of one of its 58 counties, and then can additionally be under the control of one city within a county.

So I think the boundaries of the incorporated city of San Jose are the best option to go with.

--Coolcaesar 03:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with that--that's what *I* think of as San Jose, and I've lived in this valley since (harrrumph harrumph) a long while. I think we'd be better served by having the image with a caption, but currently the macro doesn't allow that. I actualy looked at the macro last week to see whether I could fix that, but I'm afraid I'd break some other things, like make those who don't want a caption suddenly have one or worse, so I didn't muck with it. Elf | Talk 05:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I poked around and found that the terms are from SCCs LAFCO[7], which seems to be uniquely Californian (at least by that acronym--other states may have similar bodies by other names)[8]. I agree the incorporated boundaries are probably the way to go. If this image is used, it needs to be cropped--I just did a quick&dirty version for the discussion. Also, the copyright status is iffy--while based on PD data, county employees apparently added the SoF and UrbSArea boundaries, and while the pdf itself has no copyright notice, the site I got it from has one on the footer of every page. I guess we could contact the SCC Planning Dept and see if they claim a (c) on the pdf, and if so try to get them to release it under the free-ist licsense they're comfortable with. Also, it's pretty cluttered--it would be awesome if someone could clean it up. Oh well, I'm up and functioning earlier than normal, so I'm off to take pics of some of the east-facing buildings I'm usually too late to get unshadowed pics of. (Oh, and when it's being cropped or otherwise editted, a caption could be added as part of the image itself.) Niteowlneils 19:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, I figured since I own PaintShop Pro I might as well learn how to use it, so I cleaned up the map. Two caveats: Not every small patch of unincorporated land within the city limits is represented. In a couple areas with at least a half-dozen various size patches of unincorporated land within the city limits, the representation is, let's say, 'approximate', but I've spent more than 8 hours on this (over half doing pixel editing) and just don't have it in me to try and make it perfect, at least not in the near future. That said, I think it is still more accurate and informative than the current stick map. So, should I replace the stick map with mine, and if so, do people prefer a) plain, b) adjacent cities labeled, but not SJ itself, or c) SJ and adjacent cities labeled? Any tweaks suggested?

a

b

c

I like "C". The problem with legends in a diagram is that they're hard to localize (translate). On the other hand, the problem without legends in a diagram is that they're hard to understand. Sooooo.. IMHO go for it. Elf | Talk 20:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

8 hours!! That is above any beyond. I have just two minor suggestions. 1. Consider saving a clean version of the image (not from a jpeg source, if you have it) as a PNG to remove all of the jpeg artifacts. The file size should be much much smaller and the image will be more accurate and easier to read. 2. Consider a easier to distinguish color when in thumbnail format. Primary colors like red, blue or green would work better than the pale green IMO. Thanks. BTW, I also like version C. --ChrisRuvolo 00:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It started as a printscreen image of a PDF :/ (not the image at the top of this section, but one that looked the same, except not being cutoff--the biggest pain was getting rid of all the black census lines correctly). I did try saving a PNG version, and it was 13% bigger, and looks identical. The SoI line is bluish, and the USArea line is reddish, so that leaves either yellow or a darker green. I'll play around with it. Oh, and a good chunk of the time, and part of why I was willing to do it, was learning the program--I'd never done much of anything with graphics programs before. Niteowlneils 03:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

File:SanJoseMapWithLAFCOandAdjacentCitiesandSJandCAYellowRed.jpg

At the size I think it would be in the info box

Well, yellow does make the lines stand out better, which is a good thing. It also makes my kludgy unincorporated areas stand out better, which is a mixed blessing. Oh, they aren't really that noticable in thumbnail view at least. (replaced it with the county in the CA map in red--a bit more noticable. Niteowlneils 03:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If someone gave me the translated text it would be a snap to plug it into the legend--I've saved many versions along the way to start from for most any request, actually. BTW I was kinda surprised there was no Spanish version of the article--just French, German, and Swedish. Niteowlneils 03:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here's building on ChrisRuolo's idea. It took a lot more touchup, but as I get more practice and confidence I'm getting much faster using the tools (I also cleaned up some things about the city names that were bothering me):

At the size I think it would be in the info box

Nice, looks good to me. I'm surprised about the PNG being bigger. Have you tried PNGCrush? [9] You also might get better compression if you change the image to palette mode instead of RGB mode. --ChrisRuvolo 23:59, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RE PNGCrush: It seems to only have compilable source available, no EXE. Given that it's only 132 K, and there are a number of people uploading 15 M photos (totally ridiculous, IMHO; besides being disk hogs, out of thumbnail mode you can only see a small fraction of the pic on the screen at one time, and printing would probably take an industrial-sized plotter. I think the Upload function should have a much smaller max size.) I don't know if it's worth spending any more time trying to shave off a few K. I'll probably add it to the article later today--I should probably add a bit of text about the LAFCO's role re SJ--probably in the Law and government section, I imagine. Niteowlneils 00:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Using GIMP 1.0.x (don't ask, its old) I converted the 134330 byte JPG to a RGB PNG and it came out to 143902 (9k bigger). If I first converted it to a indexed palette (256-color, optimized palette, no dithering) and saved it as a PNG, the result is 29479 bytes. Much better. Going from a non-artifacted source should be a little better. BTW, for pngcrush binaries: [10] (although it didn't help for the images I was working with) .. And yes, 15 meg photos is quite rediculous. --ChrisRuvolo 00:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was just coming back to add to my previous response, as I realized I had forgotten to address your palette/RGB comment. If you can tell me how to do it in PaintShop Pro (I scanned the menus and a few dialog boxes and nothing jumped out at me), I can try it here (remember, I am 100% new to graphics editing--Paintshop just happened to be on the hand-me-down office computer I got to take home as a 'parting gift' when I was layed-off, jeez, just a couple months shy of 2 yrs ago, now). Otherwise, let's use your version. Niteowlneils 01:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't use PSP, but according to the online manual [11](PDF) there is an option for the format to save the PNG in under File > Export > PNG Optimizer. Set the "image type" to "Palette-Based". Turn dithering off. Under "method of color selection" try either "optimized median cut" or "optimized octree". I hope this works with your version. --ChrisRuvolo 02:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Version 9. I'm using version 5--only option under Export is "Picture tube". Anyway, I got the color count down to 7 (at the peak it was over 7000), got the line widths more consistent, and did a bunch of other cleanup and added it to the article (also, it's down to 13k). From a graphics perspective, it's near perfect; as for exactly representing every unincorporated patch of land within the general city boundaries, it remains a bit imperfect in places. Along the way I learned a whole bunch more about PSP, especially tweaking the palette. Niteowlneils 19:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good work. Thanks. Elf | Talk 19:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Annual rainfall

Re: "Can get 4x the rainfall or more--60" or more--" chgd to "up to 60" "...

Some notes on rainfall from the web:

• from [12] Larkspur consistently receives greater rainfall amounts than the majority of Marin County because it is in the shadow of Mount Tamalpais. Kentfield, which is upstream from Larkspur, has the highest average annual rainfall in the Bay Area--52.5 inches. (Elf notes--if this is its MEAN, it undoubtedly goes over 60 in various years.)
• From [13], re boulder creek annual rainfall, a few numbers:
  • 1977-78 80.37
  • 1978-79 46.73
  • 1979-80 65.06
  • 1980-81 36.44
  • 1981-82 87.17
  • 1982-83 111.48
  • 1983-84 46.53
  • 1984-85 43.21
  • 1985-86 72.30
  • 1986-87 29.15
  • 1987-88 33.91
  • 1988-89 33.93
  • 1989-90 28.32
  • 1990-91 32.50

This isn't the mean, but it clearly went 6 to 8x sj's annual average. (I think it's interesting that after all those heavy years it then went to much lighter rainfall for several years. That's weather for ya!) So anyway there's probably a better way of phrasing the info, but it's clearly true that parts of the BA get 4x or more sj's average. Elf | Talk 18:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

City poulation misleading to non-Americans

Saying that it is the tenth largest city in the U.S without explaining that in America "city" always means "within city limits" is totally misleading for readers from much of the rest of the world, where the primary meaning of city is "urban area". I will add a qualification. Wincoote 00:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Statue of

The article mentions that the statue was controversial because it "did not closely resemble a winged serpent." This fails to note what the statue actually does resemble, which would be a giant dog turd. Go ahead, look at the picture. This comparison is not only amusing, but has been widely noted in and around San Jose. Can we mention this in the article? hmmm? can we? please? :-) DaveTheRed 09:27, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Be Bold! However, remember if you include an opinion, it should be presented as such, and attributed to someone. Here's some links to help you out. [14] [15] [16] Gentgeen 12:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Heh - no kidding. This whole section has POV issues, pretending that there is only an "early" controversy over the 2% art funding. I've yet to meet a working class taxpaying resident of the city who considers this handout to lazy artists to have brought any sort of benefit to the residents. An "evolving attraction to the city"? Please. No one comes to San Jose on vacation for any reason, much less for this so called "public art".--207.154.79.131 11:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The Morrill.org link expired 10 days ago--you can see the archioved page at [17]; however, no other hits result from a Google search for Quetzalcoatl AND "Big Turd" while there are lots of hits for Quetzalcoatl AND "Park God;" this section needs lots of work, which I am not prepared to do, but I am going to revert this one edit so the anagramists can enjoy finfing the not-so-secret meaning of the more common scatalogical reference.

Yeah, but some of us suburban residents enjoy walking around the city and finding the art-stuff that's there. If it weren't for that, SJ Rep, and the evolving Guadalupe River Park, I'd never go downtown at all. Elf | Talk 15:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

pronounciation

How is the name pronounced?

In Americanese--San (as in "man") hoZAY. I don't have time at the moment to look up the "correct" (but obscure) pronunciation notation that wikipedia articles seem to prefer. Elf | Talk

Thanks :)

In IPA, that's [sæn hoʊˈzeɪ] or, in fast speech, [sænəˈzeɪ] ("san-uh-ZAY")Nohat 29 June 2005 19:32 (UTC)

San Jose Wikipedians

Is there a "club" persay of San José wikipedians? I've met 3 editors online so far in the IRC #wikipeida channel. Just curious. --CoolFox 07:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about a club, but there is a list at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/California#San_Jose. Gentgeen 17:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that will do. --CoolFox 23:11, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Peggy Fleming

I believe that Peggy Fleming is actually from Los Gatos, a small/medium city south of San Jose.

Dawn22 02:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

San Jose Public Library

SJPL currently has 15 open branches, or 16, if you include the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, which is shared with SJSU. Currently, there are 5 "closed" branches that are in various states of being renovated or rebuilt. http://www.sjlibrary.org/about/locations/ Eventually, there will be more branches, thanks to a bond measure that was passed in 2000. http://www.sjlibrary.org/about/sjpl/bond/map.htm I don't know if this needs to be added or not, so I'm just leaving the information here.

Dawn22 02:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

--216.103.118.14 17:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)TimD== Neighborhoods ==

Please help me wikify the nearby suburbs list that I added to the neighborhoods section of this article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I tweaked the table layout (before I noticed you'd left this note), if that's what you're referring to. Niteowlneils 01:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

East San Jose is a distinct portion of the city geographically and demographically. The area is bounded on the west by Highway 101 and to the East by the Eastern Foothills of the Santa Clara Valley. To the north is the city of Milpitas and to the south the city of Morgan Hill. Some 85 percent of the city's impoverished households reside there. It is predominantly Latino and Southeast Asian in demographic makeup. The city's main industrial zones are located there and its neighborhoods stand in sharp relief to the image of San Jose as a haven for the nation's techno-elites. "Evergreen" is a feeder valley to the southeast of East San Jose and has its own identity as a largely middle-class residential area.

Mission, Vision, and Values?

I have a copy of the City of San Jose's Mission, Vision & Values. I'm new to Wikipedia and unsure where this should be added in (under government? a subheading?). Any suggestions?

Yeah, that might be a good place. Make sure that you summarize the content if possible; WP isn't a place for exact reproductions of other text. On the other hand, if it's only something like one sentence, well, then, like a motto, one can't really summarize it and would have to use it as is. Elf | Talk 19:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Problem in lead paragraph

It currently says "The San Francisco Bay Area, of which San Jose forms part, is the fifth most populated in the U.S."

Fifth most populated what?Nohat 05:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear: either 5th most populous SFBA, BA, or Area?

Bad Image

This image, under the Attractions section, well, is bad. To say the least.

"background clutter removed 2/12/05" Well, without the "background clutter", the image is worthless. It doesn't fit the caption of "A meerkat at the Happy Hollow Zoo" because it doesn't show it actually at the Happy Hollow Zoo. It just shows an awkwardly edited meerkat on a green background.

I'm removing it from the article, and suggest that it be deleted.--BDWill Talk Contribs 09:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the image from the article.--BDWill Talk Contribs 09:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've now nominated the image for deleted. --BDWill Talk Contribs 11:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell did you not link your removal edit? Are you too lazy to change a block of light green to white yourself? You apparently have no problem with images that ARE ONLY used for POV userboxes, but challenge good-faith GFDL imagesUser:B.D.Will? Are you trying to build an informative encyclopedia, or a userpage-centric personal webhosting service? My original pic had distracting shadows I thot would make the pic less useful for Wikipedia--if you disagree with my background color choice, why not FIX IT! instead of trying to remove it from Wikepedia? And what version of English is "I've now nominated the image for deleted."? I know it is not US English, and I don't think it is UK/British English. HIGHLY POV projects like you seem to be embarked on is one of the main reasons I'm giving up on this project. You waste Wiki foundation resources on pushing your POV, but have no problem challenging good-faith NPOV edits? I am a 'top-60' all-time EN editor, and your few months makes you more knowledgable about wiki-standards than I?

The picture is of a meerkat at the SJ Zoo--why do you propose deletion instead of fixing the problems that YOU (note how long it went unchallenged) only, claim?

"I've now nominated the image for deleted." Maybe you should learn how to speak English before you try to enforce your version of it. You don't even define YOUR judgemnt of "bad". How can anyone meet your 'bad' allegations without a serial def? And who says your def is the 100% approved, clear-cut, obviously correct def? Do you have any idea how many EN images YOU are protesting?Niteowlneils 08:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Iwon image, rather than historical context. Again 'how long have you been here'?

Well... I took it upon myself to edit and upload to Commons the very same image but with the green background changed to white. I already replaced the original in the San Jose (California) article.

The very cute meerkat revisited...

Hope this helps. -- Mareklug ^talk 10:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I thot it was a fun picture. Niteowlneils 03:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Responded to personal attack.

--BDWill Talk Contribs 05:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

So I am a realist...

Alright! I VISITED the City Hall only yesterday! The Rotunda is "still under construction". And when it opens, I can see what is available. I am so sorry to say: not much. There is a fountain on the grounds, but it is regularly cleaned for algae, it has disclaimer signs saying "do not enter because water is recycled" and ther is a car wash RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET from the fountain! All rights! Maybe I am being too picky because I am spoiled by the San Francisco City Hall and its opulence! What can I say? I RECOGNIZE that the SF Civic Center was only possible because of the 1906 Earthquake and fire. You have GOT to have a contiguous space to achieve such an architecture. I attended the http://www.sfopera.com/ premier party after the inagural performance of Turandot in [18].

I remeber the Gala afterwards. The elite of SF promenading over to City Hall and the grand staircase with the grand piano in the middle of the Rotunda and the different musical themes in the North and South Light Courts. I KNOW it is NOT FAIR to make comparisions, but it lingers yets in the back of my mind. There is something to it: life is not fair. -- PlsTalkAboutIt 20:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

All right! Sna Jose has more head-count that space-limited San Francisco does, but head-count alone does not quite cut it. Silicon Valley has Stanford, which is all fine and good. But SF has... how shall I say it? SF still has class. How do gentlement say it? "Age before beauty." It will still take San Jose some time yet. I am sorry, but that is my assessment. -- PlsTalkAboutIt 20:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I attended my bar exam prep course in San Francisco last summer and had to walk past City Hall from Civic Center BART to St. Mary's Cathedral at least three times a week for two months. San Francisco's City Hall has a rather large population of homeless people inhabiting the plaza in front of it, which makes it quite unpleasant to linger for extended periods of time (due to factors like odor, infection risk, robbery risk, etc.). San Francisco's Civic Center suffers from severe traffic congestion due to the city's failure to complete the Central Freeway or any reasonable alternative. In contrast, San Jose has a lovely new City Hall plaza where homeless people are relatively sparse, and only minor congestion since downtown San Jose is surrounded by four major freeways. And San Jose actually tries to provide parking for visitors in order to attract them to see the sights and spend money. --Coolcaesar 21:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I hate going to SF. Too many people. Too many cars. Nowhere to park, or you have to walk miles for public transit, which is slow. Too much trash. Too expensive. And almost always cold. I'm not super fond of going into downtown SJ, either, although free parking weekends & nights makes it a little better. However, all that aside--what is this dicussion going to add to the article, which is what this page should be about? Elf | Talk 16:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You guys are responding to PlsTalkAboutIt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a blocked vandal. Pay no attention to him. Davodd 09:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured article -- in need of attention

To keep its featured status, this article needs a thorough copy edit and cleanup; not a 100 percent lost cause, but still worse than some of the featured candidates that get rejected these days.

1. No longer well-written. It has become a patchwork of me-too edits.
2. Graphic elements are a hodgepodge that are falling over each other in some areas. Major Growth is the worst section for this.
3. Verb tense in this article is too fluid to be easy to read.
4. Lack of flow from one paragraph to the next comes off as amateurish prose.
5. The Meerkat photo, although cute, is not up to featured article quality, (nor is it needed).

   I've commented it out, at least for now. It could be replace with a pic of Happy Hollow itself, or some other San Jose attraction. NeoChaosX 20:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

6. Too many redundancies in the lead.

   Removed redundancies in lead. Hope it is enough. Joelito 22:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

7. References and Sources need to be consolidated for ease of reference to the reader.

   I have consolidated the references and converted them to footnotes. Joelito 21:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

- Davodd 09:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of city logo

I have reverted this most puzzling change. The rationale is clearly stated in the standard logo template: "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos to illustrate the ... organization in question ... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." The logo is illustrating the city government section. I can't imagine a more obvious place that the standard fair use rationale for logos would apply to. Nohat 17:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the logo because there is no mention of it in the article so even though the image has a fair use rationale there is no palpable reason to use it in the article. It looks as mere decoration if it not mentioned in the article. Joelito 17:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The logo illustrates how the city government presents itself. Nohat 02:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Telephone History section should move

The "telephone history" section is interesting but far too specific and detailed for a general article about a city. If the author likes it well enough it should be moved into a new article and then perhaps linked at the bottom of the "San Jose, California" page. Anachron 16:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur. It should probably be moved to the article on Area code 408. Some clown has been adding some really detailed telephone history to a LOT of American city articles and has been driving everyone crazy with moving such garbage to the area code articles where it belongs. --Coolcaesar 18:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. I moved the material to the Area code 408 page as suggested by Coolcaesar. 19:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Suit in 1989?

Is there a reference for the suit against the Eiffel estate and France? I'm willing to believe this happened in 1889, but 1989? --Steve Pucci | talk 16:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I searched the online archives of the San Jose Mercury News and found this:

SAN JOSE 'SUES' PARIS COURT TO DECIDE IF GUSTAVE EIFFEL STOLE IDEA FOR TOWER
Source: BARRY WITT, Mercury News Staff Writer
Excerpt: The Gaul of it.. Claiming that famed civil engineer Gustave Eiffel stole the idea for his monument from obscure newspaper Publisher J.J. Owen's downtown light tower, San Jose has sued Eiffel's estate and the city of Paris for copyright infringement and demanded all profits the French have received from the wrought-iron masterpiece. The complaint -- filed on San Jose's behalf in the Court of Historical Inquiry by the Bench and Bar Historical Society of
Published: December 27, 1989, Page 1B, San Jose Mercury News (CA)

OK, thanks, and based on that I found this, including this quote:

In 1989, the San Jose Court of Historical Inquiry, whose sessions are intended to address controversies involving events of the past, while having as much fun as possible along the way, set out to find out.

I've rewritten the sentence in the article to remove the impression that the city of San Jose did this in an official capacity. --Steve Pucci | talk 18:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Designation of Safest big city

Do we really need the following sentence:

The designation is based on crime statistics reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 2004 in six categories: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and auto theft.

It has nothing to do with San Jose itself, and this methodology is explained in the link in the fourth footnote anyway. I'd like to remove this sentence, but I'm wondering if there is any objection to it being removed before doing so. NeoChaosX 21:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox/City Council

I just reverted the addition of the city council to the infobox. It adds way too much clutter to the infobox and is unnecessary. The listing of all city council members is best left to the article itself, instead of cluttering up an infobox, which is meant for quick access to information (adding a huge list like that almost defeats the purpose).

Also, the fields that were used for adding the city council members to this infobox were just recently added to the Template:Infobox City, and there is still considerable debate over whether these fields will remain in the infobox, due to other issues. Please leave them out of the article until this discussion is complete. Dr. Cash 19:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

I proprose removing the link:

• A Review of the Bay Area Shia Centers

from External links as it should be in the Bay Area article instead, I think since it is about religion in the Bay Area, not about San Jose. If there is no objection I'll remove it in the future. --JVittes 05:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Too long, too fluffy

This article is twice as long as it should be. Even the New York City article had no problem fitting into a far more usable 57kb. The culprits:

• History: we have 3 centuries of history taking up 3 times the space of New York City's 4 centuries. The history needs to be split off into its own article with a skeleton outline left on this page and link to full history.
• Arts and architecture is an interesting piece, but it also should be in its own page.
• The attractions take up several times as much space as that which I've seen on any other city page. An extensive list of attractions belongs on wikitravel, or, at the very least, on its own page.

--Loodog 02:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Gentgeen 04:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

click the image

I KNOW that net gurus don't like this phrase, since it helps people who are in the know. But I thought Wik was for every-one.

GrowthWay too San Jose...

The last paragraph of the Growth about "Many people's view of San Jose is still formed by the Dionne Warwick hit from 1968, 'Do You Know the Way to San Jose?'" seems a bit out of place. I nominate this paragraph as not notable, at least in regards to Growth. Perhaps a mention of this song should be added to a notable mention section without the weasel wording stating opinion about how the city may or may not be preceived?Fcsuper 04:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, with no objections sited, I removed the last paragraph that was as follows: Many people's view of San Jose is still formed by the Dionne Warwick hit from 1968, "Do You Know the Way to San Jose?" Written by Burt Bacharach and Hal David (neither of whom had spent time there and chose the name because it suited the tune), it includes the lyrics, "there's a lot of space in San Jose; there'll be a place where I can stay" and "I may go wrong and lose my way," and contrasts it to Los Angeles, "a great big freeway." In 1960, the population of San Jose was only 204,000, just over a fifth of the 2003 population. The only freeway through or near San Jose was U.S. Route 101, which touched only the outermost edges of the city and was still a rural route or controlled by traffic lights in some areas. A large portion of the Santa Clara Valley still contained commercial orchards. portions of this paragraph might still contain good info, just in other contexts (which is why i listed it here).Fcsuper 00:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3