Talk:San Diego

Districts

I'm not sure most of the districts here merit articles of their own. How much is there to say about Banker's Hill? Perhaps eventually as WT grows? I'm trying to fill in the important ones - La Jolla, Balboa Park, Mission Bay.--(WT-en) justfred 18:29, 11 October 2006 (EDT)

Also under Districts it list South Park and Golden Hill as the same area (also known as). This is incorrect. South Park is its own area, distinguished by official City signs. The area's are right next to each other, however they are not one in the same. Here is a link to the district maps:

http://www.sandiego.gov/neighborhoods-map/central.shtml —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 68.8.112.45 (talk • contribs) 20 Nov 2006

I reorganized the districts based on the above link. I didn't fill in all of them, but the groupings help keep the list more readable. I deleted the links to neighborhoods that weren't on that page that didn't have articles. Also, I merged Mission Bay & Mission Beach. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 22:10, 26 January 2007 (EST)

This article is wildly over-districted. Most of them are red-links, and I don't see any above 'outline'. Without any experience in San Diego, it seems to me that there's content for three districts: Northern, Central, and Western - with Eastern and Southern content either orphaned or merged into a fourth district. Are there any San Diego residents reading this who'd like to take the initiative? It'll be a much better and more useful article for it. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:22, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

It's been a while since I was in San Diego, but I know that some of the individual districts are most likely worth keeping. For instance, La Jolla, Mission Beach, and Pacific Beach all have enough stuff individually and are unique enough to merit their own separate articles, there just isn't enough stuff in the articles yet. The problem isn't necessarily too many district articles (although quite a few of those red links don't really justify mention here), it's too few contributors and listings in those articles. I think a single Northern article would possibly do more harm than good if someone were to actually go there and try to use it as a travel guide.

Now, I'll do some research on the districts and see which ones are worth keeping. I imagine most of the red links will be districts we don't even have to bother mentioning. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 14:47, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I think a Chicago approach to districts would work best here. Some sections of town, like Central or Northern, can be kept in separate district articles, while other sections of town, like Southern, can be turned into a single district article covering all the neighborhoods in that section. I'll get to work on this. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:19, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

This article grossly oversimplifies San Diego. To cite some examples:

The term "district" is rarely, if ever, used by the citizens here. I think it is mainly used by the Union-Tribune newspaper. It is a city of proud neighborhoods, so do not expect, for example, to hear locals say mid-city. Rather, they will say: City Heights, Rolando, North Park, Normal Heights, Kensington, Talmadge, College Area, Alvarado Hills, El Cerrito, etcetera. Many of these areas are old street car suburbs with their own small, commercial districts frequented by locals. You will notice a distinct absence of chain businesses.

Do not use the term "Southeast San Diego". It is very unpopular with people who feel it lumps to-gether and trivializes the character of their individual neghborhoods. There was some strife about this in the local press a few years ago.

Also, several neighborhoods surrounding Centre City/downtown fought to get their old names restored after the Planning department changed names (Little Italy became Harborview, and Bankers Hill became Park West). There was also an effort to change the historic name of the embarcadero to "waterfront". The old names were restored/retained. Centre City was the traditional name for years for the downtown areas of San Diego, Escondido and Oceanside,but marketers in San Diego have been promoting it as "downtown" for several years now.

There are approximately 54 community planning groups whose membership is composed of citizen activists elected by other residents in their neighborhood. This has been the case for over 30-years. All planning decisions involving variances vis a vis the adopted community plan for a particular neighborhood must pass muster with these groups. So do not think that people do not love and care for their neighborhoods.

As far as public transportation is concerned, I think the article is again grossly over-simplified. San Diego has a comprehensive mass-transit system. It is not New York to be sure, but it is one of the better systems in the United States.See: sdcommute.com and sandag.org for details. For example, a half-billion dollar rail line opened in the north County a few months ago as the backbone of the north county bus system. It feeds into coastal Amtrak, Metrolink, Coaster which in turn connects to trolley and bus lines in the south, east and central protions of the City of San Diego and Cities in the South Bay and East County.

I could go on and on.

I am sorry, but on a scale of 1 to 10, this article gets a 3. I am certain an earnest effort has been made, but was it written with local input? —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 71.136.39.151 (talk • contribs)

→ Project:Geographical hierarchy#Districts in cities. Wikivoyage does not simply divide cities by neighborhoods, since that would often leave you with a bunch of mostly empty neighborhood articles. We instead try to combine neighborhoods into digestible "travel districts" (districts is the site-wide term), which should each be able to support a full travel article complete with several see, eat, drink, sleep, buy listings. 54 districts would leave our travel guide way too fragmented (for example, LA has 8). It would be appropriate to have one article per neighborhood in Wikipedia, which tries to have an article about all subjects, but I'd challenge you to find a travel guide to San Diego that devotes one chapter per neighborhood.

With regards to the "get around" public transport information, please plunge forward & fix it yourself! There's rarely a good reason to carp on the quality of an article when you have the ability to edit it ;) --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 23:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Trying to organize the districts for San Diego has been an insanely difficult task. You have to strike a balance between having a layout that will make sense from the standpoint of someone who is visiting the city and not having too many district articles, otherwise they will lack content. You should have seen the layout a while ago, when it was organized by neighborhood. We had five articles for what is now the Downtown article (East Village, Gaslamp Quarter, Little Italy, Marina, and Columbia) and all of them had little content. We had a few articles for what is now Mid-City (Kensington, Talmadge), and there was very little content in all of them, not to mention it was a pretty darn confusing layout.

Yes, these neighborhoods are very unique. But no, we can't create an article for each and every one. If you are a local though, we would love to have you on to help us structure our district layout. Maybe then we could create a more satisfactory district layout.

By the way, where in the article does it even mention "Southeast San Diego" now? That hasn't been in there for a while. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 02:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Identify image?

It has been asked which street this image is from. -- (WT-en) Jonboy 11:58, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

That is 150-200+ west Broadway. The brown building is the Pickwick hotel. To the left of it is the courthouse. To the right ( just an awning is visible ) is the Greyhound bus station.

some orthopedic hospital

For the second or third time, some anonymous contributor has spammed the San Diego page with a blurb about their orthopedic hospital. But Wikivoyage is a guide for travelers, and while general hospital information may be useful to them, specific orthopedic hospitals would not be places sought out by someone on a vacation. See Project:Goals and non-goals.

For this reason, I will be removing the link yet again. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Blackberrylaw (talk • contribs)

Links to that hospital have shown up in Southern California, San Diego, San Diego County and Encinitas. At this point it seems reasonable to question whether the submitter's goal is to improve the travel guides, since it looks like they're simply trying to get some free advertising - and as you've pointed out, edits that aren't meant to improve the guides for travelers are definitely against the spirit of the Project:Goals and non-goals. Should these links appear again it probably wouldn't hurt to add the URL in question to the Project:Spam filter unless the submitter can provide a valid reason why travelers need this info. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 02:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Downtown Districts

While we're trying to figure out this whole district situation, I wanted to take a look at Downtown. Right now there's an article for just about every neighborhood in Downtown, and not a single one is above "outline". So why not get rid of the bunch (with the possible exception of Little Italy, since it really is its own thing) and create a single "Downtown" article? (WT-en) PerryPlanet 16:42, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

The map of districts is a silly choice. Most San Diegans don't even know what a district is unless thay have dealt with the city bureacracy. They mean nothing to the average traveler. It would be far better to write only about neighborhoods and some small cities.

You have a very, very good point. But for the moment, there's plenty of neighborhoods besides the ones that have articles that have something of interest to travelers (like a restaurant or a hotel), but don't have enough to justify their own articles. Northeastern and Mid-City are already examples of regions which have several neighborhoods. Still, you have a very good point and I'll try to see if I can come up with a modified system. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 13:12, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Districts...again...

After reading the above comment, I realized this whole "regions" concept is just too much. Honestly, save for bureaucratic purposes, these "regions" mean absolutely nothing. I should have realized this sooner, but I got caught up in this organizational idea.

SO...I just did what I feel like I should have done from the very beginning - save for the two region articles I already created (Northeastern and Mid-City), San Diego is now split up on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis (at least, only the neighborhoods of interest to the traveler). Believe me, this actually makes sense. Neighborhoods in certain parts of town are very unique from one another. Downtown, Balboa Park, Hillcrest, all are connected yet all are quite unique. Mid-City only partially works with Hillcrest. Ocean Beach has only a little semblance to Point Loma. Do Mission Bay and La Jolla feel like the same part of town? And where does Old Town fit into all of this?

So hopefully, you can see how confusing this whole region concept really was. However, I didn't get rid of the old regional map, so I really appreciate your thoughts on the matter so we can figure this out once and for all. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 15:41, 11 January 2008 (EST)

While I'm at it, I'm interested in making another change to the district layout (boy, I'm really on a roll lately, aren't I?). I've been feeling that Kearny Mesa simply lacks what it would take to have a proper district article. There's no attractions there, only suburbs and strip malls with the occasional restaurant or hotel. So I'm thinking of merging it into Northeastern San Diego. In fact, I'm thinking of making "Northeastern San Diego", for the purposes of this travel guide, everything north of Mission Valley and east of I-5. That way, Clairemont and University City would also be included, so in the future if anyone felt like there was something in either of those neighborhoods worth adding here, there would be the appropriate article to do it.

But let's hear some discussion on this! What do you think? (WT-en) PerryPlanet 01:38, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Any thoughts on Kearny Mesa? Anyone? Cause I'm planning to redirect it pretty soon here... (WT-en) PerryPlanet 14:50, 30 January 2008 (EST)

Okay, I've redirected Kearny Mesa. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 18:38, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Coronado

I just changed the districts layout to include Coronado, and I wanted to justify it here really quickly. Yes, Coronado is technically a separate city from San Diego, but keeping it separate on our system has bothered me, because it's surrounded by San Diego and from a tourist point of view, it's very prominent and feels very much a part of San Diego - it doesn't really behave as a suburb of the larger city. Given its prominence, leaving it out of our breakdown felt like a mistake. PerryPlanet (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Honorary Philippine Consulate

https://www.facebook.com/phcgsd/

Hope this helps. --w:en:User:RightCowLeftCoast 06:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Putting this on the talk page doesn't help much. If you have a phone number, address and email address, put an entry in the "Cope" section, or if there isn't one, create it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

What's up with the area not covered by the district map?

So if I read the district map correctly, there is an area with urban looking streets but not covered by any one district. Is this just following some arbitrary municipal border drawn for political reasons or is this of any benefit for the traveler? If there were a listing located in the non-covered area, which article would it go in? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Which area are you referring to? PerryPlanet (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The area between San Ysidro and Mid City. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

That would be the municipal border. National City and Chula Vista are separate cities from San Diego. PerryPlanet (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Does following a weird arbitrary administrative border serve the traveler? To give a rather extreme example, Görlitz covers even the Polish side of the Neiße in our article (though we could be a bit more explicit about it, perhaps) Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal regarding districts

Just looking at the map it looks to me obvious that National City and Chula Vista form a contiguous area with San Diego and neatly close the "gap" between San Diego and San Diego/San Ysidro. As district layouts with gaps are cumbersome, wouldn't it better serve the traveler to treat those as districts of San Diego? Or should we on the contrary treat San Ysidro as its own city article and not a district of San Diego? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Change the district layout of San Diego

Swept in from the pub

I have proposed here to eliminate the current discontinuity in the district layout of San Diego either by making San Ysidro a city article independent of San Diego or by making two city articles districts of San Diego. I don't know what the administrative borders in the area are, but we have ample precedent to ignore them when they don't serve the traveler Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Though Wikivoyage policy allows for a great deal of leeway in this regard, I have always been of the opinion that we should follow administrative boundaries unless there's a pretty compelling argument to the contrary. I think treating San Ysidro as an independent city is preferable to expanding the scope of San Diego's districts. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yet another discussion that has not resulted on any action being taken... How should we proceed? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Randomly jumping out of the woodwork here to say administrative borders be damned; do what feels right. Cities like San Diego really blur the line between what is actually part of the city and what merely feels like it, in large part because most of those administrative boundaries came about through opportunism (i.e, capturing tax revenue), self-exclusion (suburbanites keeping any "undesirables" out of their communities), and just plain spite. Hell, I already had Coronado listed on the districts section of the San Diego page just because it's such a major tourist destination that most visitors identify as part of San Diego, and I don't see why not to doing the same for Chula Vista and National City (and Imperial Beach, don't forget that one!).

To take this thought further, you could also incorporate the eastern suburbs (Lemon Grove/La Mesa/El Cajon/Santee). North County at least has something of its own identity, so that can be left alone; in fact, you could make a compelling argument for chopping off that northernmost portion of "North San Diego" and redirecting the content to the more prominent communities of Poway and Escondido. PerryPlanet (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Be that as it may, no one is actually going to do all that work. I think the easiest way to resolve this is to make San Ysidro its own city rather than a district article of San Diego, and leave the rest alone until someone who's in a particularly ambitious mood happens upon this discussion. There's no reason why a place that's NEITHER administratively part of NOR geographically contiguous with a city needs to be treated as a district of said city, and I've plunged forward on that basis. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I was under the impression from what Hobbitschuster said above that San Ysidro was not administratively part of San Diego, but I'm seeing now that's not true. In that case, the status quo is fine. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear due to ignorance earlier, San Ysidro is indeed administratively part of San Diego. But as said, that needn't force our hand either way. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)