Talk:San Francisco/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Lead Image Update

I like the lead image, but this page could use a montage of notable SF images as well like most big city pages. PerhapsXarb (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at the archived discussions about this same question. All of the discussions ended with no consensus for a montage. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

There should be a montage to showcase more than just the Golden Gate bridge. This is a page about the city, not the bridge. Eccekevin (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Past responses to your observation centered around the difficulty of identifying which particular photos should be assembled to represent the city, since there are so many different aspects of it, too many for a practical montage. The single image of the city as seen at a distance through the Golden Gate Bridge prevents the problem of a montage missing some essential part of San Francisco. And a montage makes each selected image appear much smaller than if it was placed in the article body. Finally, the editors who are interested in the topic appear to be satisfied that San Francisco's article bucks the trend for montages. The city is something different than normal, and proud of it. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, that montage with is really bad. If anyone cares, how I would do it, as someone who has been around SF quite a lot, is have:

-The current image, large at the top, and others smaller below that, in no particular order

-Ferry Building: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:San_Francisco_Ferry_Building_(cropped).jpg

-City Hall: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:San_Francisco_City_Hall,_nighttime,_September_2016.jpg

-Chinatown: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:San_Francisco_China_Town_MC.jpg

-Coit Tower: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coittower1.jpg

-Golden Gate Park (and Western San Francisco in this image, probably cropped but a bit bigger than the other images): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Golden_Gate_Park_air_2.jpg

Obviously this is not the whole of San Francisco. Images of the Painted Ladies, Haight-Ashbury, Twin Peaks, Japantown, the Mission, and BART would be cool, but cluttered all together. I think my selection gives a good overview. NYC only has one non-Manhattan pic in its montage for Pete's sake. Like in Philadelphia's image, the montage does not need to be its own separate file. PerhapsXarb (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Those are really good choices and pictures. Really showcases the richness of San Francisco. I approve of your efforts Eccekevin (talk) 06:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

No one in the past ten years or so has ever given a good reason why a montage is better than a single image, and none has been presented now. Instead, there has been an endless parade of editors predictably repeating things about conformity and "not just about the bridge" (yes we know, that's why the article and infobox are titled "San Francisco," now stop treating readers like idiots), never mind that people here have heard them all before and have rejected them again and again and again. If people could divert their attention to improving other aspects of the article, that would be great. --Kurykh (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Nobody has given a good reason why a single image is better. So some people reject, some people agree, some people obstruct. OK, I'm about to make history. First good reason in ten years coming up: A montage helps the reader get a broad sense of a city, showing them some specifically chosen things that are commonly identified and related to in reference to that city. Having just one image, especially one barely showcasing the city, is a bit inadequate. No, San Francisco can't be summed up in five images... I think the rest of the article is probably good. And this pic is good in a montage too. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3_Cable_Car_on_Hyde_St_with_Alcatraz,_SF,_CA,_jjron_25.03.2012.jpg PerhapsXarb (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

(fix indent of my first comment; it's intended to respond to the original post) That's...not a newly conceived reason at all, let alone a good reason (no, seriously, look up and you'll see that it has already been said). And I'll give the rejoinder that's also in the thread from before: the image in the infobox is not intended to give "a broad sense of a city" and should not be. It should be a snapshot that instantly identifies San Francisco, which it currently does. No one in their right mind sees the Golden Gate Bridge and thinks Oakland or ravioli or Genghis Khan. Infoboxes in articles about people don't have montages that give "a broad sense of a person's life"; infoboxes in articles about weather phenomena typically don't have montages that give "a broad sense of what they look like"; so infoboxes about cities don't need montages. This article withstood a serial montagist's onslaught of terribleness years ago, and that terribleness should stay banished. --Kurykh (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Look, I have no objection to choosing a different single image. It's the montage concept that's bad, has been bad, and will continue to be bad. --Kurykh (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not violently against having a montage, but what the present image shows better than any montage I've seen is the unusually peninsular geography of San Francisco. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite an iconic viewpoint. That's why it would be the top, largest, and most prominent image in my proposed montage! Would that get you thinking about considering the prospect of thinking about getting on board? PerhapsXarb (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

PerhapsXarb, you said "Nobody has given a good reason why a single image is better", but I have already said that single images, presented by themselves, are larger. Larger images give more detail and a fuller experience to the viewer. A montage reduces the size of each. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they are sometimes a bit smaller, but not necessarily. Since the overall montage is generally quite larger than a single image, they are sometimes bigger– look at Paris's page, where the largest photo in the montage is bigger than San Francisco's lone image! Plus, the photo is taken from so far away that it is impossible to see the city in close detail. Anyway, if I want to see a montage photo close up, I click the image, then zoom in more if necessary. Most people don't care that much though; the image should be "a snapshot that instantly identifies" the city from a glance. But why is one instantly recognizable image more important than others?

With regards to the montage being "bad, has been bad, and will continue to be bad", Wikipedia is not a platform for ideological warfare. And looking at the vast majority of city pages, it appears that perspective is not commonly accepted. PerhapsXarb (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

It's fine for you to like the montage concept, but so far this article has not jumped on the montage band wagon. It's not a requirement that San Francisco's infobox must look like that of other big cities. I prefer a conceptual photo at the top, so that the reader can be drawn in to peruse the whole article, without getting distracted. Binksternet (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I would think it is more distracting to have so many images throughout the body of the article. I´m not sure how a montage is distracting. Having key images in one place is quite efficient in my view, letting a viewer get a sense of the article without having to search through the whole page (most Wikipedia visitors don´t have time for that). Someone said the picture isn´t meant as an overview, but I disagree. PerhapsXarb (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I just came here from the Madrid talk page where they were discussing the montage in their info box. One person advocated a single photo "as on the San Francisco page," so I clicked over here and I have to say I was extremely underwhelmed. San Francisco is a beautiful city and this is a photo only an engineer could love. A glance at it, which is all most people will take, shows you nothing. Unless you click on it and zoom in several times, you can see nothing special at all about the city except that it is surrounded by water. Tiny and irrelevant. Why so much sky? Why so much water? Why brown grass on the Marin Headlands -- that's not even San Francisco. How about the ridiculously steep hills, the fog, the skyscrapers, cable cars, burrito joints, Chinatown, the Castro, SoMa, the Haight... anything??? This photo is a technocratic nightmare to me.

If the mission of the photo is simply to identify that yes, it is indeed San Francisco, the title of the article does that just fine. If it is to show that the city is surrounded by water on three sides, a little map or a bit of text will do that. If it's to show off the GG Bridge, even if you think that is SF's best feature which I don't, then just about every picture I've ever seen of the GGB is sexier than this one... this picture is just OK if zoomed in 3x and is awful as a thumnail as it sits at the top of the page. Choosing 4 or 6 images for a montage is not that hard. No, no one will be 100% satisfied but any of the suggestions I've seen would be an improvement over what we have now. IMHO the mission of the photo is to identify, yes, but also to create a bit of an emotional connection with the place, to do something that words alone can't. So we just need to choose 6 beautiful things. Not hard in SF. Yes, they can be hi-res for the people who want to enlarge it. I think at the top of the page ("above the fold" as they used to say) all visitors to the page need to see 1 or 2 things that make them say "f*** yeah, San Francisco!" C'mon, let's generate some enthusiasm instead of being so cold and technical, folks! Stycklyr (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Are my ideas for these "6 beautiful things" (beauty more as in "SF-ness" than the classical sense) fairly reasonable? These are definitely things that make me say "f*** yeah, San Francisco!", being a Bayarean.

-The current image (or one like it), large at the top, and others smaller below that, in no particular order

-Ferry Building: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:San_Francisco_Ferry_Building_(cropped).jpg

-City Hall: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:San_Francisco_City_Hall,_nighttime,_September_2016.jpg

-Chinatown: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:San_Francisco_China_Town_MC.jpg <-Really nice image

-Coit Tower: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coittower1.jpg

-Golden Gate Park (and Western San Francisco in this image, probably cropped but a bit bigger than the other images): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Golden_Gate_Park_air_2.jpg

PerhapsXarb (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

These look like photos that belong next to appropriate text in the article, if they, or others like them, aren't already there. Your suggestion isn't clear about the arrangement. Are they to be put in the the infobox, though not part of a montage and pushing down vital information that people should see at the top; or are they to be put below the infobox, and probably shoving down images relating to the first part of the article? Dhtwiki (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I would most prefer a montage, as I have stated numerous times. You say you are not "violently against having a montage, but what the present image shows better than any montage I've seen is the unusually peninsular geography of San Francisco." So are montages OK if the lead image is kept as part of it? If it pushes the rest of the infobox down a couple hundred pixels, I don't think there will be any impact whatsoever for the reader. Most city pages seem to make do just fine. And no, I haven't decided how the images would be arranged, though I have a concept in my head. Maybe I'll splice something together in my free time. As for the body of the article, there are more than enough images already. I don't think any of the images I proposed are found in the body (could be wrong), but it's too many to fit anyway. PerhapsXarb (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't realize that you were still talking about an arrangement for a montage. The current photo I would not include in a montage, as it's not that great a photo; there are better photos out there. However, it shows a more recent skyline that some others, and people were missing having the new Salesforce Tower included. I'm not against a montage, but I'm not against the current arrangement, either; and if a place as classic as Madrid is looking to follow SF's lead, that's a reason not to abandon it. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a great point about Madrid folks mentioning this article as an example of good practice. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

For the time being, the lead image should be made larger. It is very small compared to most lead images, and doesn't even really fit the infobox's size.

The weather says MLK Day should be mainly clear, maybe I'll head up to Marin and try to get a better shot. PerhapsXarb (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Montage

Current lead image

Montage, for comparison

It's been more than two years since this issue has been brought up and I'm bringing it up again. The composition in the lead image is a fantastic idea, but in reality it doesn't really capture San Francisco in a way that makes it worthy of leading the article.

• For starters, in an article about San Francisco, the Golden Gate Bridge is in the forefront and the city skyline is barely visible (taking up 15% of the picture if that).
• Second of all, about 30% of the image is empty space on the bottom, making the smallness of the city (the supposed focal point) even more glaring.
• Lastly, and this is something that has changed since the discussion two years ago, the city skyline has changed significantly since this picture was taken, so if a skyline is to be in the header image, it needs to be up-to-date.

I have read some comments deriding the montage as being cluttered. On the contrary, the montage is a way to visualize a place that is difficult to capture in a single image. It is also more visually pleasing to look, up close, at important parts of a city rather than looking at it all from a distance (and seeing nothing). Because the current image offers very little, the vast majority of it is empty space.

Pinging editors who have engaged in this topic in the past @Shogunner7:, @Agnosticaphid:, @Kurykh:, @Norcalal:, @Reverend Mick man34:, @Seaphoto:, @Biker Biker:, @Paul.h:, @RK-SFO:, @08OceanBeach SD:, @Binksternet:, @Dhtwiki:. Sorry if I missed anyone.--haha169 (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The point of the lead image is to identify the place, not to "visualize a place that is difficult to capture in a single image." The Golden Gate Bridge instantly identifies San Francisco more than any other landmark in the world. Shoving a bunch of tiny photos in the beginning of the article (like where does that random lion come from?) visually detracts from the article. Space and simplicity in a single image has its own value, and it has its positive contributions in the infobox. There is no need to crowd information in every nook and cranny. No different arguments from before, no addressing of issues raised before, no montage. --Kurykh (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me for saying that none of those responses are satisfactory. A montage is hardly a crowding of information if done properly, particularly if five or less images are chosen. I agree that the simplicity of a single image has its own value, but you've completely ignored all of the problems with this particular lead image:

• • • This image identifies the Golden Gate strait, and would be a suitable lead image for that article, but hardly suitable for the city of San Francisco.
    • You can barely even see the city or any of its constituent parts aside from the bridge. Even the bridge itself only occupies a mere 30% of the frame. The bridge as a symbol works well, but not if the city is completely sidelined. The focal point, which should be the city of San Francisco, is a white smudge that is barely discernable.
    • Half of the image is empty space, Pacific Ocean.
    • And lastly, this image is outdated. Even if you can barely see the skyline as it is, that skyline is outdated.

This montage can be re-done. I agree that the Chinatown lion perhaps isn't the best image to choose there; the Golden Gate Bridge, Painted Ladies, Transamerica, cable car, and City Hall are good enough. But a good montage is far more aesthetically pleasing, visually informative, and comprehensive than a single image, particularly this image whose focal point is that of the Golden Gate strait rather than the city of San Francisco.

Other editors have brought up issues with the quality of this lead image before, but it has never been fully discussed as the topic always veers back towards montages. The montage is merely being presented as an alternative to a current lead image that wouldn't be deserving of a lead image spot for the Golden Gate Bridge article, much less for San Francisco. "An image of a white-tailed eagle is useless if the bird appears as a speck in the sky," similarly, this image of San Francisco appears as a small white smudge in the corner and the bridge too far away to be representative of either, or both. --haha169 (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No reasonable reader is going to see the Golden Gate Bridge in an infobox titled "San Francisco" in an article titled "San Francisco" and think that it's about the Golden Gate Strait. Remember that the Golden Gate Bridge is part of the city of San Francisco itself, not some disconnected structure in the middle of nowhere. You are really grasping for straws here, just like the montage advocates of years past. That's why MOS:IRELEV doesn't apply here. We interpret policies and guidelines reasonably, not by stretching them to reach absurd conclusions.

You also contradict yourself: you want to be comprehensive, but have only five images or fewer in your montages (never mind they're all in one quadrant of the city). Comprehensive for tourists? We're not a travel guide.

More importantly, you're comparing an abstract concept of montages to the very real image we have up on top right now, which is an apples-to-oranges comparison. My main contention is that singular images in general are superior to all montages because montages by definition are multiple images in one place, which makes the top of the infobox busy no matter how you slice it or dice it. That busyness is what makes it feel cluttery and therefore bad for this article's purposes. You want a different lead image? Sure, we can discuss that. But a montage would make things worse. --Kurykh (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I am hesitant to put in the work of creating a better montage to advocate for before guarantees that it would be used, hence using abstract concept of montages as an alternative. Montages are, by definition, more comprehensive than a single image. Further, an image leading with a city's landmarks does not make it a travel guide in and of itself, no matter what you say.

But I digress, my main point with starting this conversation is that the current lead image is simply not good. If a single lead image must be used, I would recommend one of the following three four:

• File:SF_From_Marin_Highlands3.jpg, which is taken from the same angle and is marginally better: it has better framing, the Golden Gate Bridge is in greater focus, and the identifying features of the San Francisco cityscape is more clear. There is less empty space, but it is unfortunately even more outdated than the current one and the left tower is just too close to the edge of the frame.

• File:Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco at sunset.jpg if cropped vertically would be the best of the four, but unfortunately the GGB tower is blocking the also-smybolic Transamerica Pyramid.

• While I don't hate the symbolism of having the GGB in the image, they either focus too much on the GGB rather than the city in its entirety, or do a bad job of showing both. File:San Francisco skyline from Coit Tower.jpg does a good job of showing the city's skyline as well as the lower-rise neighborhoods around the Financial district, but unfortunately misses out the GGB as an instantly recognizable symbol.

• The Painted Ladies (File:San Francisco DSC09797.JPG) are another instantly recognizable San Francisco symbol, much like the GGB, but its location relative to the skyline makes it easier to take a photo with better composition and framing.

Despite my concerns with each of the alternatives, I personally believe that each of the four that I presented above is better than the current image, whose shortcomings I have already detailed at length. --haha169 (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

That montage was previously rejected after multiple discussions archived here. My position back then is still the same: that the infobox text should not be pushed farther down by the extended verticality of the montage, and that the images can be presented with better clarity and context if they are separated and distributed throughout the article. Binksternet (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand the viewpoint of those against the montage. However, as I've mentioned above, the current lead image does a poor job representing the topic and identifying San Francisco. If a single image must be used,File:SF_From_Marin_Highlands3.jpg is taken from the same angle and does a better framing job (although more outdated); the Golden Gate Bridge is in greater focus, and the identifying features of the San Francisco cityscape is more clear, whereas the current lead image is both unfocused (lots of empty space and no focal point) and unclear (the city is an undiscernable white blob occupying a small portion on the upper left of the frame). --haha169 (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The current version with the image of the bridge with the city in the background does a great job of representing the topic and identifying San Francisco. In fact, I'd go so far as to say, if you asked people who have visited San Francisco to describe what an ideal image for a travel poster of the city would look like, many of them would describe something pretty much like this. San Francisco is a striking city with many beautiful views; people recall the "crookedest street", the cable cars, Chinatown, Telegraph Hill, and many other scenes; but there is none so iconic and emblematic of the City by the Bay as a view of the Golden Gate Bridge with the city in the background. The only way I can imagine improving upon it, would be an image showing the exact same view, except with a few tendrils of the famous San Francisco fog blowing in under the bridge, or over the tops of the bridge towers, without obscuring the rest of the image. Mathglot (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. San Francisco is more than just the bridge. Of course, one should feature the braidge in the montage, even primarily. it MUST also feature the skyline. But definitely include more than just that. Almost every city on Wikipedia has a montage, why not SF? Plus, the current pic is low-res and ugly. I like the montage up there, it has the bridge, painted ladies, and skyline (expcet foe the lion). I would simply ake the lion out and make painted ladies bigger.

I think New York City does an excellent job, we should do the same for SF. ALso, I am not aware of any other major city that does not have a montage. Again, the bridge is great, but there'e more to San Francisco that JUST the bridge. City Hall, Painted Ladies, and the Skyline are all very identifieable. Eccekevin (talk) 06:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't be to hard to create a new montage for the San Francisco page. 1 the SF skyline( plus Bay Bridge) 2 the Golden Gate Bridge 3 Coit Tower 4 City Hall 5 Cable Car 6 Mission Dolores and maybe a 7th (Lombard St, ChinaTown, Fisherman's Wharf, the Castro, Palace of Fine Arts, Ferry Building, Alcatraz Island, Ghirardelli, Conservatory of Flowers, Sutro Tower) Squally03 (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

ERROR in multicolored table in Climate section

The mean low should be 47.3F = 8.6C. It was obvious by inspection that something was wrong: if a bunch of numbers (average minima) are in the forties and thirties, how can their mean be in the thirties? I copy/pasted the raw data into Excel and had it calculate. I got a mean of 47.3917 and, coding a quick Celsius converter, I got 8.5509. 2601:589:4B00:7AB:EDB6:A00F:686F:F901 (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

That does seem wrong. The table is transcluded from Template:San_Francisco_weatherbox, where the 38.2 degree Fahrenheit entry was apparently made here, in April 2016, by @CaradhrasAiguo:. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@New Jersey IP (2601:589...) No it is not, the annual field in this case is the mean annual extreme minimum, i.e. the average of the 30 annual extreme minima from 1981 to 2010. Please read the footnotes before asking facetious questions like this. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

What footnote is that figure in? I looked at a couple and couldn't find the relevant entry. The footnote that seemed to have most detail, and to be the most promising, had so many entries, such cryptic labels, and unformatted data (e.g. 403 = 40.3 degrees F) that it was very hard to read. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Footnote b: Mean monthly maxima and minima.... The rest is WP:CALC-compliant arithmetic calculations, so there is no original research or synthesis involved. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I've done some further looking, and I haven't found the figures that you must be basing you calculations on, nor do I understand why the yearly mean maximum and minimum temperatures are outside range of the monthly figures. If the yearly figures are based on upper and lower decile figures, when the monthly figures are not, then that distinction should be made in the text somehow. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

So think of it this way: The annual mean extreme minimum is a basis for the Hardiness zone classification. The footnote leaves no room for ambiguity, with the following: (i.e. the expected highest and lowest temperature readings at any point during the year or given month) CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 06:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Average household income

Where is the support for the statement that "the average San Francisco household earned over $280,000?" It is not in the provided citation and it's contradicted elsewhere in the article by household income figures that are far, far less. Fluous (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You're right, Fluous, it's not in the reference provided. It might be someone calculating from the BEA figures in the previous ref, but that would be WP:OR since it's not supported by the source. I tagged it. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Changing SFO paragraph to reflect the Virgin America / Alaska Airlines merger

Can somebody with edit privileges on this page change the line "SFO is a hub for United Airlines[313] and Virgin America.[314]" to "SFO is a hub for United Airlines[313] and Alaska Airlines.[314]"? Virgin America was folded into Alaska Airlines in 2018. For a citation, Alaska refers to SFO as a hub on their website: https://newsroom.alaskaair.com/cities-served — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsme92 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I took care of it. Thanks for helping to keep Wikipedia accurate! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding archived webpage for San Francisco rating on world liveability rankings for 2018.

The current link that Reference 34 leads readers to is the Mercer's 2019 Quality of Living City Rankings. The following link below is of a screenshot taken on Dec 26, 2018 and uploaded to the Wayback Machine that shows the 2018 Quality of Living City Rankings, with San Francisco's ranking being listed under "Top 5 by Region". I suggest adding this link as a second reference so as to not mislead readers of this article and not show inaccurate information.

https://web.archive.org/web/20181226225346/https://mobilityexchange.mercer.com/Insights/quality-of-living-rankings

StayGoId (talk) 09:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

If we're quoting Mercer, should we not show the 2019 ranking, instead of supplying the archive snapshot for an out-of-date ranking? Obviously, some change should be made, but which one? Dhtwiki (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the text and the reference to reflect 2019 ranking, where SF still has top US spot. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

CSA Popluation has changed

The federal office of management and budget has added Stanislaus and Merced Counties to the San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland CSA population. it is now at 9666055. Please update. UPdate required on all websites that include this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.10.234 (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Link Update

Link for flattestroute.com is no longer maintained. Updated site is https://theflattestroute.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.238.5.187 (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Spanish pronunciation

The name of the city isn't pronounced /sam fɾan'sisko/, it's pronounced /san fɾan'sisko/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puertagustavo99 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

See edit summaries of 16 December 2018‎:

• Unexplained; pronouncing it "sam fɾanˈsisko" makes me think of Alien Nation (film); please explain.
• changing restored Spanish pronunciation, as I see no "ɱ" character at Help:IPA/Spanish
• that’s exactly the point: if you read the page carefully, you would see [m] is used before /f/ to approximate the labiodental nasal [ɱ]

Dhtwiki (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Metropolitan Statistical Area

I added in the metropolitan statistical area population in the lead. It's most disingenuous for this article to omit the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) in the lead, citing only the combined statistical area formed with San Jose, one of the nation's ten largest cities (and which has its own separate MSA). All U.S. city articles in WP cite both figures, and the metropolitan statistical area is actually the only urban population listed in other encyclopedias (from Britannica to World Book). Both statistical areas should be called out in the lead and in the infobox; anything else is unencyclopedic boosterism.Mason.Jones (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2019

In the first sentence, remove the grammatically incorrect comma after "of" and before "Northern", changing, "and the cultural, commercial, and financial center of, Northern California." to "and the cultural, commercial, and financial center of Northern California." Jamesrobinson50 (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

That isn't incorrect. However, I've repunctuated the sentence to make the construction more clear. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• CHP Police Interceptor Utility Vehicle.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

San Fran and Frisco

To open the debate again, I want to point out that is objectively incorrect to say that is is "colloquially called" San Fran or Frisco inside the city itself or in California. I might be colloquially called such in other parts of the country and world, but the opening statement is still misleading. Hence I think the lede should be amended to specify that such names are used exclusively outside San Francisco itself. Leaving the lede as it is currently is a disservice to the reader, which should be avoided on WIkipedia. Hence I would amend the lede to "San Francisco, officially the City and County of San Francisco and colloquially known as SF or The City,[19][20] is the cultural, commercial, and financial center of Northern California. It is also known as San Fran or Frisco outside of San Fransisco" or something similar to be closer to the truth.Eccekevin (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

But also "The City" is so generic as to be meaningless. Sure, people in or around any city in the world might refer to the urban core as "the city," but I don't think it's distinct enough to warrant inclusion here. I propose removing "The City" from the list of nicknames here. Qqqqqq (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I grew up in the suburbs of San Francisco. As a kid, San Francisco was usually referrered to as “the city.” I have always recognized “San Fran” or “Frisco” as colloquialisms used amongst tourists, but they are used. I say include them all. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 17:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Literally anywhere in the world can refer to their own city as "the city". People here in the Chicago suburbs often refer to downtown as "the city" too. The term is so generic that including it in the lede lacks any real distinguishing factor from what people can call their own city in nearly any other urban area. Unless there's some source that states that people in San Francisco refer to themselves as "the city" more prominently than everywhere else, I vote its exclusion. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Chicago seems to have its share of silly nicknames (Chicagoland, the Second City). Calling San Francisco "the city" is a local colloquialism. (See: SFTravel, SF Examiner, and Curbed SF. "The city" may derive from the longer "[the] city by the bay" label. KidAd (💬💬) 20:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I could see keeping San Fran in the lede, but Frisco makes no sense. There's a paragraph dedicated to nicknames and it has its place there, but not in the lede. It's hardly ever used and never in San Francisco itself.Eccekevin (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Concur with Eccekevin. No one in the Bay Area uses San Fran or Frisco. It is always SF or the City. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I would keep "Frisco" merely because it was used in the past, while possibly making clear, if that's warranted, that its use is in the past. However, whatever you do has to be according to sources. We keep that nickname because the sources we use list it on an equal footing with others. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Pac12 Womens Volleyball

Is the Pac 12 Womens Volleyball going to be played — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:112A:472C:3033:8C8A:18BF:140 (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be protected?

I mean, it's a very big city, and we don't want false info, right? --24.173.222.94 (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The page is pending changes-protected. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

November 18, 2020 edits

Please excuse and accept my apologies for some clumsiness in my editing on this day. I neglected to give an edit summary which would have said see talk page. It was due to my inadvertent click of the publish button.

I restored accurate and properly sourced edit regarding Portola. Information provided in the Nov 14 edit summary by Firejuggler86--who removed the information--is erroneous. I added salient information with a WP:RS to address the erroneous information.

I am very hesitant to edit a WP:FA and did so with only solid information. An experienced editor should probably review the edit for technical mistakes I may have made. Kind regards to all.Hu Nhu (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

SF Being *the* Political, Cultural, and Economic Center of NorCal

I think this is too much of a sweeping statement for the lede, as unlike other major metro regions like New York or DC, the Bay Area is disparate and has three major cities, each of which could be considered their own cultural, political and financial centers. Palo Alto rivals SF for concentration of white-shoe law firms, banks, and arguably bests SF for venture capital. Oakland's (and Berkeley's for that matter) cultural and dining attractions rival SF's. Oakland is the center of the African-American community in the region, not SF. The Hispanic, Asian, indigenous communities also aren't centered in SF (or really in any particular Bay Area city). Silicon Valley contains most of the Fortune 500 companies in the Bay Area.

Two of the major news affiliates serving the region (Fox and NBC) are stationed in Oakland and San Jose, respectively. Two of the Bay Area's best universities (Stanford and Berkeley) are closer to San Jose and Oakland than they are to SF. Commute patterns in the Bay also aren't SF-centric, as job centers are scattered all over the region. San Francisco contains less than one-tenth of NorCal's population proper, and San Jose is larger than it both in area and size. Oakland is the major port city for the region, not SF.

Also the "NorCal" statement is just far too encompassing. Sacramento is some 87 miles away from SF, is the cultural/political/financial center of its metro region in its own right and whose residents would probably scoff at the notion that SF is the epicenter for their region. NorCal also encompasses Fresno and Modesto (Fresno being 150+ miles away from the Bay), which are entirely separate areas in the Central Valley that don't center their commute patterns around SF and are very much independent economically, politically, and culturally from the Bay Area.

I think it would make most sense to call SF a major political, economic and financial center of NorCal. But to call it "the" stretches that very nebulous and controversial concept way too far, and discounts other cities like San Jose, Oakland, Fresno, Sacramento that are centers for their metro areas in their own right. I would appreciate further input on this suggested change to see if a consensus can be reached. If there is no opposition, I will make that change in a week. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

No objections within 7 days, so I'm going to go ahead and change the lede based on WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. This is now the new consensus. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Just saw this. Reluctantly concur. Historically, SF was the primary cultural, political, and financial center of NorCal as late as the 1980s, but that is definitely no longer the case. Another factor has been the failure to achieve regional amalgamation despite four major attempts. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

SF definitely is the center of the financial, commercial, and cultural center of NorCal. It has the highest GDP, most tourists, the most cultural venues, and is by far more famous internationally than any city in northern California. It is also the political center, given the prominence of SF politics on a nation-wide scale. Pelosi and Newsome just two recent examples. It is undoubtedly the financial center of NorCal, especially since it is the second financial hub in the entire country other than NYC. So while it might not be the educational or population center, it definitely is the commercial and financial center. Regarding commercial, SF has a GDP of $183.2billion, more than the entirety of the Santa Clara county combined which includes San Jose (despite SF having half the population). And obviously, it is much more commercially important than Sacramento or any other city. 'Cultural' is more difficult to define, but the prominence of SF is also underscored by the fact it here receives more than double the Wikipedia traffic than any other NorCal city. This is a big change (that lede has been there for a long time), so I suggest a RFC before changing it. Eccekevin (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This is bullshit. Bring reliable sources for either position and gain consensus before restoring. Until this dispute is settled and backed by WP:RS without WP:SYN, it's just opinion and has no place in an encyclopedia. Toddst1 (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

San Francisco was ranked 8th in the world and 2nd in the United States on the Global Financial Centres Index as of March 2020. As of 2016, the San Francisco metropolitan area had the highest GDP per capita, labor productivity, and household income levels in the OECD.. It is widely seen as the financial capital of the western USA, and second in the county to NYC. So I do not see why 'financial center of NorCal' could be disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eccekevin (talk • contribs) 01:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

You are attempting WP:SYN. Toddst1 (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Not the case at all. I am just showing how such a description cannot be deemed inaccurate.Eccekevin (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Since you're not WP:HEARING the basics as they are pointed out, let me boil it down to the requirement: you need provide one or more reliable sources that explicitly supports the statement you wish to add. Toddst1 (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Toddst1 and Coolcaesar. Toddst did the right thing by removing the disputed material until a better consensus can be found. To respond to Eccekevin (who cannot call an RfC on their unilateral power and clearly had 7 days to object, in which they did nothing), political power is not measured by statewide politicians coming out of a city. By that logic, Bakersfield should be the political capital of Northern California since House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy hails from there. There are more State Senate and Assembly surrounding SF than there are within SF itself. San Francisco has a single U.S. House district out of the dozen in the region. San Jose has four, for comparison.

When you are discussing GDP, you are referring to the "SF Metro"-- which is the broader accumulated wealth of the region, not the city. The region contains dozens of other cities, one of which is larger than SF. Then there's the problem of Fresno, Modesto, and Sacramento, which you conveniently left out. Northern California as a region is not just the Bay Area-- it is the entire Central Valley and all areas north of Sacramento as well. And I honestly don't think anyone here could say that San Francisco is the "economic center" for the Central Valley, Sacramento, or regions like Eureka and Redding.

And lastly, website traffic is not a reasonable measure used to determine the "cultural center" of anything. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Refs

References

Here's the only source I need to disprove the unreasonably narrow metric used by Eccekevin to call SF the "financial capital of NorCal" above: https://localnewsmatters.org/2019/12/31/gdp-breakdown-economic-growth-in-the-bay-area/. This source lists GDP by Bay Area county from 2019.

*1. Santa Clara County — $316.5 billion

*2. San Francisco — $162.5 billion

*3. Alameda County — $130.7 billion

*4. San Mateo County — $105.0 billion

*5. Contra Costa County — $77.5 billion

*6. Sonoma County — $28.6 billion

*7. Solano County — $23.3 billion

*8. Marin County — $20.9 billion

*9. Napa County — $10.0 billion

Out of an $875 billion total GDP for the 9-county Bay Area, SF makes up about 1/8 of that. And it's only the second largest GDP of any Bay Area county behind Santa Clara County. Not surprising, as most Fortune 500 companies in the Bay are headquartered in Silicon Valley, not San Francisco. This is unlike any other major metro centered on a single city. GDP is also not inclusive of so many other economic drivers. So even based on that flawed GDP metric, you cannot reasonably call SF the economic center of the Bay Area, let alone Northern California. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Concur. Also keep in mind that SF in the 80s was the birthplace of iconic international fashion brands like the Gap (which was founded in 1969 but really hit its stride in the 1980s), Banana Republic, and Esprit, as well as famous bands like Starship. Nothing like that occurred in the 2000s or 2010s; all the hottest fashion brands and music trends came out of LA. --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

"the center" vs "a center" vs nothing

While User:EndlessCoffee54 changed the lede sentence from "the cultural, commercial, and financial center of Northern California" to "a cultural, commercial, and financial center of Northern California" (emphasis mine), User:Toddst1 has gone further and removed this phrase entirely, so that the article opens by merely calling San Francisco the 16th biggest city in the United States. This seems jarring and fails to open with meaningful context, imho. How about at least putting back the language that it's a center? Graue (talk) 07:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd be okay with this. It's a completely accurate statement, in my view at least, to say that SF is a major commercial, cultural, and financial center of NorCal. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Concur with User:Graue and User:EndlessCoffee54 on this point. It is still important, but not the only one. --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree that some language pointing to San Francisco being a center could well be restored. Adding to what has already been mentioned: the state supreme court sits in San Francisco, not Sacramento; the relevant federal district and appeals courts are headquartered in the city; and San Francisco is the location of one of only three US mints. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

That is all true; but the BART headquarters is in Oakland, as is the headquarters of the entire UC system. Caltrain's headquarters is in San Carlos. Regional governance is nowhere near centralized enough to call SF "the" center, but it is definitely "a" center (and a major one). EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Seeing no disagreement with "a[...] center of Northern California," I've restored said phrasing. Happy New Year everyone. Graue (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Montage again

I see that it has been a few years since this issue has been brought up so I believe it should be brought up again. San Francisco is one of the only, if not the only, major American city without a montage for the lead image. The main argument against a montage as seen from the discussion three years ago is that it would be difficult to find 7-8 that well represent a city so diverse as San Francisco. I believe this is wrong because if cities like New York, London, Chicago, along with nearly every major city is able to do this than San Francisco will be able to as well. Please check the revision history from a few days ago where I created a montage which I believe well encapsulates San Francisco. There was also a revision by another user changing one image I selected to an image of Chinatown which is a choice I agree with. It's well time that San Francisco joins the standard of major cities with a photo montage as the lead image and I hope we can now get the necessary consensus to do so. Yankees999 (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Yankees999: Is there a consensus or guideline someplace that major cities need a montage in their infobox? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: It's the clear standard for major cities. Of the top 30 American cities by population San Francisco is the only one lacking a photo montage.

Yankees999 (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We've had several discussions going back to 2008, probably more discussions on this than on what nicknames to include (see this 2008 discussion; this from 2010; 3 discussions almost in a row from 2012 (2) and 2013; and 2 2018 discussions, one after another). Previously established consensus doesn't have an expiration date. The single images that we've had usually do a better job of showing San Francisco's peculiar peninsular geography than a montage would. While I wouldn't abandon all hope if a montage were decided on, I also don't think it's necessary to have one just because other cities do, even if they are every bit as magnificent as San Francisco. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't think the goal should be to just illustrate merely the peninsular geography of the city. NYC also has a peninsular geography. But just like NYC, SF has a lot more to it, from its distinct architecture, its hills, its famous trolley cers, Alcatraz, the painted ladies, the LGBT culture, Chinatown etc... Since all of these are tied into the image of the city, I think a montage would better give the reader a first impression of it. The current picture can be the top imageEccekevin (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC) of the montage.

Moreover, the consensus of editors who wrote MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE agreed that "The less information it contains", the more effectively it conveys information in the article. I'm tired of 10-mile-long infoboxes that clog the right side of the article, and editors who add photos to a collage instead of including them in the article next to the text that describes the photo. I also think collages are decorative, per MOS:IMAGES, and do little to improve the article. The photo of the bridge currently in the infobox of this article is just fine. It shows San Francisco well without making the infobox look like the cover of a travel guide. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

That's fair. I didn't mean to imply that previously established consensus had an expiration date but rather that it could be brought up again. I still believe the photo used now can still be used to show San Francisco's peninsular geography as the top image of a montage and that adding a few other photos would not clutter the infobox. Yankees999 (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

There should be a montage. San Francisco is more than just the Golden Gate bridge.Eccekevin (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I concur with User:Dhtwiki and User:Magnolia677 that montages are inappropriate for WP. They are a violation of WP policies especially WP:NOT. WP is "not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files." It's also not a directory and it's not an indiscriminate collection of information. I would support the immediate purging of montages from infoboxes in all U.S. city articles. If those images can be moved into article text as relevant to various paragraphs, that's fine; otherwise, pull them out. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Montages are horrible. Every montage is a case of reduced size for the involved images. I think it's better to have a nice, clear image shown at the largest size possible.

As for montages in infoboxes, they were banned from people-related infoboxes in 2016, the discussion visible at "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members". Two subsequent RfCs confirmed the ban. An example of the offending type of montage can be seen in the history of the Man article which had 20 images of "Man" arrayed in a montage.

My stance hasn't changed one iota. I am not in favor of a montage here. Binksternet (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

A city is not a group of humans. A city is perfect for a montage that highlights its most remarkable features or landmarks. The current picture only highlights the golden gate bridge with a burry skyline in the back. San Francisco is so much more than just a bridge. Eccekevin (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

San Francisco is more than a montage, too. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but. montage is more representative than one picture of the Golden Gate bridge. Eccekevin (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I do agree that if we cannot get the consensus for a montage we should at least change the current image. I agree it is very blurry and not representative at all. Yankees999 (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The present image has its flaws but also its charms. For one thing, it was specially provided for us by an editor, when a previous image didn't show the gigantic sex-toy-shaped Salesforce Tower looming over the skyline, whose inclusion was considered important and was incontrovertibly encyclopedic. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Featured article review

This article no longer meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. There are many unsourced statements, in addition to self-published sources and potentially dated statements. The article is lengthy. Should the unsourced parts be cut? DrKay (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree image spam easy to fix ...but sourcing is a bigger problem.--Moxy- 15:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This article has extreme MOS:SANDWICHing throughout, considerable dated text, uncited text, and short choppy sections. A top-to-bottom rewrite is needed, or the article should be sumbitted to WP:Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Montage vs single blurry picture

An editor added a nice montage, which looks much better, presents a more complete picture of the features of the city, and is the standard for city pages at this point. I think a good montage should be used to represent San Francisco, since the city is more than just the Golden Gate Bridge. The current picture (although it's blurry and doesn't really give a good view of the city) can be maintained, if the editors are attached to it. The montage would simply add more pictures to it, to give a better representation to the city. SF is the only large city in the US who's page doesn't have one, and I think it should be adapted to the rest because it looks better.(talk • contribs)

Current image

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eccekevin (talk • contribs) 00:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I still think montages are a pox on city articles. Every image in the montage is reduced in size, rendering it more difficult to see. If an image is worth having, it's worth having at its largest practical size. Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

But in this case the current image would remain, and in the same size. A montage like such would add, without removing anything.Eccekevin (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the montage shown has some beautiful and compelling images, but I also don't require a montage for the infobox and think that because everyone else does it (which may well be true) is not a strong argument. Besides, the blurry part of our current, single image is the foreground flowers, not the city. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC) (edited 11:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC))

My argument isn't that it should be done cause other cities do. My argument is that it should be done because it's more informative and more compelling (and that's incidentally why all other pages do it). And why are we even showing the flowers? This page is about San Francisco, not the flora of the Marin Headlands or the Golden Gate bridge. Plus, the view of the skyline is incredibly low quality and choppy in this picture. Eccekevin (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The flowers just happened to be there when the picture was provided. They do add a classically contrasting color to enliven the image and probably can be seen as marking the graves of all the dead-end attempts to change the image. I don't know what you mean by "choppy". Some low points are overlaid by haze that's more evident in the high-res version. I don't know how more crystal clear you can get, though. If it's a bad photo, why include it in the new montage? Dhtwiki (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

As a compromise, because some editors feel strongly about this photo being the perfect representation of SF. By keeping it, and including more of the city, we lose nothing and gain a better picture of the page as a whole. Eccekevin (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the single picture. Montages bloat the infobox, and take forever to load on a handheld. Moreover, one of the photos in the montage--of the Palace of Fine Arts--is too artsy and "decorative". Magnolia677 (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The artsy picture also shows the decorative elements of the building to good effect. That is, it's encyclopedic, even if dramatically lit. I think all the pictures of the montage are remarkable, and the one with city hall in the foreground is panoramic enough to be a possible replacement for the one we have, even if it doesn't show Salesforce Tower, if that were ever the consensus. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

And does the montage really need two photos of the bridge? This photo shows the water, the bridge, and the Marin Headlands--none of which are located in San Francisco. The only part of the photo located in San Francisco are the rocks on the right. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The majority of the current picture (forefront flowers, background mountains, and much of the water, half of the bridge) is not part of San Francisco. Eccekevin (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

It's been like that through several photos and many years. Nobody is concerned about it. Binksternet (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm just responding to Magnolia who argued against the montage because it includes pieces of land and water not located in San Francisco. Eccekevin (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Article on Shilha Wikipedia

I translated this into Shilha; see [1]. However, it won't let me link it to this article. Please help! Mesijanski Judje (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mesijanski Judje:, i just connected them, should work now. Cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ngkhanh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead section isn’t encyclopedic

(Except maybe parts of the last paragraph about history)

It’s flooded with lists, rankings, statistics, and WP:Recentism, and devoid of anything that meaningfully educates readers about the city in the big picture. It reads more like a promotional travel brochure written by residents than a neutral description of the city. 2600:1700:4261:90B0:0:0:0:33 (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

(1) "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that you can edit yourself" and (2) city articles in Wikipedia are prone to civic boosterism, and San Franciscans are notorious for this. As in the article Mariah Carey, fans make sure their idol is at or near the top in every measure. I've seen some outrageous POV removed from WP city articles, but SF editors always manage to restore the original bombast. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—47.155.89.168 (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article, and they appear to be correct. If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to supply a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

"McLaren, California" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect McLaren, California has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 13 § McLaren, California until a consensus is reached. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 07:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"Sanchez Street" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Sanchez Street has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 13 § Sanchez Street until a consensus is reached. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 07:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Multiple image infobox

I feel like we should add sore images to the infobox, it currently looks dull compared to other cities in the US with a similar population e.g. Charlotte and Seattle. It would improve the article a bit. Thanks :) (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. I generally view Wikipedia articles on a small laptop screen (like many others, I'm sure), and find those photo montages frustrating. The images end up too small to tell me anything much at all about the city. HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

A few other editors have proposed multiple images for the infobox, and every time the local consensus is reinforced against them. All the usual arguments for and against have been stated in previous discussion. I'm against—I think one image is suitable for this city. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Last thing we want is the scrolling nightmare and teeny mini images like at New York City. Most readers only scroll one time that doesn't even get you halfway through the info box so really people only see the first paragraph of the New York article . 15 images in the lead is a good way to deter readership.Moxy- 13:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

While I think having so many images at the New York City page or the Seattle page would be a hindrance to mobile users, I think that having one to three good quality images of San Francisco would make this page a bit nicer. NeoChrono Ryu (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I strongly agree that we need a multi image infobox. At least three or four. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

"Salami Capital of America" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Salami Capital of America has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 7 § Salami Capital of America until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing 1 MW

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 13 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Juanafrancescaa (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Juanafrancescaa (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"Doom loop" in lede

I have removed the content referring to the so-called "doom loop" in San Francisco. Several of the articles cited ([2], [3]) are opinion pieces from the Chronicle and the Hoover Institution that do not qualify as reliable NPOV sources. And the claim about "San Francisco's challenge to remain a relevant center for flagship commerce and industry given its relative geographic isolation from other North American commercial centers in an era of increasingly ubiquitous e-commerce" is sourced to a quote about the price of gasoline in California, which has nothing to do with either e-commerce or businesses leaving the city.

It is certainly true that downtown San Francisco is continuing to suffer from the combined effects of the shift to remote work, crime, and homelessness, and I support the continued inclusion of that content in the "Economy" section of the article. But I question whether it merits mention in the lede – particularly given the disputed accuracy of the "doom loop" framing ([4], [5]). This overview should focus on content of long-term significance, not the latest boom-and-bust economic cycle. I note that the articles on cities like Seattle and Portland, Oregon, which have been affected by similar conditions in their downtown areas, do not discuss those challenges in their ledes.

Pinging @Castncoot in case they have any thoughts. Conifer (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment. I respectfully beg to differ that this content represents a pure short-term blip or that it represents undue weight. The work-from-home phenomenon is a sea change in human society and no place on the planet has been affected by this sea change even proximately to the extent that San Francisco has. Yes, West Coast U.S. cities have been disproportionately impacted by this phenomenon, but even amongst this group, San Francisco sticks out like a sore thumb. If this had happened just a month or even a year ago, then one could make the argument of recentism, but this is a downslide that has lasted for years now and certainly now warrants merit in the lede, if not necessarily to the detail outlined and could be reasonably somewhat shortened. There are many reliable sources out there which describe San Francisco's doom loop and a countless number which reliably state that San Francisco has been described as experiencing a doom loop, if changing the source is an issue. But there's no apparent reason to discount the Hoover Institution's findings as long as attribution is given.

• On the other hand, what does represent an example of recentism in the lede is the following verbiage: " As of 2020, the metropolitan area, with 6.7 million residents, ranked 5th by GDP ($874 billion) and 2nd by GDP per capita ($131,082) across the OECD countries, ahead of global cities like Paris, London, and Singapore. San Francisco anchors the 13th most populous metropolitan statistical area in the United States with 4.6 million residents, and the fourth-largest by aggregate income and economic output, with a GDP of $669 billion in 2021. The wider San Jose–San Francisco–Oakland Combined Statistical Area is the fifth-most populous, with 9.5 million residents, and the third-largest by economic output, with a GDP of $1.25 trillion in 2021. In the same year, San Francisco proper had a GDP of $236.4 billion, and a GDP per capita of $289,990. San Francisco was ranked fifth in the world and second in the United States on the Global Financial Centres Index as of March 2023. All of this seems to obliviate the entire grave impact wrought upon San Francisco by the catastrophic Covid pandemic.

• A certain amount of recentism is inevitable in most geographical lead sections of Wikipedia. As long as that material is factual, reliably sourced, and duly pertinent, it's not only appropriate but constitutes responsible editing. Castncoot (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response. I disagree with the premise that "no place on the planet has been affected by [the work-from-home] sea change even proximately to the extent that San Francisco has". Due to the dominance of the tech industry, the city has the highest office vacancy rate among major US cities ([6]) and the lowest return-to-office rate ([7], [8]), but the shift to remote work is a nationwide phenomenon. As you can see from the tables in those sources, we are talking about a 10–20% edge over cities like Houston, Denver, and D.C., none of which have received the same level of "doom loop" commentary in the media or in their Wikipedia articles.

I think it is perfectly appropriate to update the local and regional GDP figures for 2022/2023 when possible. While it doesn't look like the BEA has released its numbers past 2021 yet, the independent estimates I can find ([9], [10]) project strong GDP growth and low unemployment since the pandemic ([11]). Regionally, unemployment remains comparable to other large metropolitan areas and below some major ones like Dallas, New York, and Chicago—far from an economic catastrophe ([12]). No one would deny that the effects of the pandemic have been far-reaching, but San Francisco's software engineers and bankers continue to power a strong economy. They are just doing so without commuting to office buildings in downtown.

To comply with WP:DUE, if we are to give credence to the reliable sources arguing for the existence of a "doom loop", we must also consider the plethora of reliable sources that have challenged the accuracy of such a concept, some of which I linked above; I am happy to provide more upon request. I continue to believe that the lede section is not the right place to incorporate this level of nuance—it should be dedicated to a long-term overview of the entire city (not only the Financial District or the Tenderloin). Conifer (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Conifer, we can absolutely do that, please ignore the disruption of the disparaging stalker who reverted my edit (yes, I'm 'privileged' to have my vey own Wikipedia stalker whom I have warned about being as such more than once before). That aside, in accordance with your proposal, both the doom loop and the contrarian viewpoints should be given no less than a brief mention when the downtown area powers the city's economic engine and when the 'description' of a doom loop and steadily decreasing apartment rents over a trend-period of years now has characterized San Francisco as no other city; the very term "doom loop" itself would not have come about to describe San Francisco so widely in the media if there were no legitimate reason, and intrinsically implies something that is not temporary. And the bottom line is that the media has indeed characterized San Francisco in this way, far more so than any other city to the extent that this has become a WP:NOTABLE trope characterizing SF now. The type of language that could perhaps be employed is that, "San Francisco, led by its downtown area, has been characterized as having entered a doom spiral since the beginning of the Covid pandemic in 2019,<ref> but this has also been refuted.<ref>" By the way, the San Francisco Chronicle is the city's de facto flagship newspaper and holds legitimate weight concerning its observations about San Francisco. Castncoot (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, reviewing the sources that you added, it sounds like we agree on several key points here. Let me know if I'm off base with any of these:

• San Francisco continues to be one of the most prosperous cities in the country, with moderate GDP growth and low unemployment since the pandemic. Rents remain among the highest of any US city ([13]), indicating sustained demand for housing, albeit somewhat lower than pre-pandemic ([14]).
• The Bay Area has seen the highest shift to remote work of any US metro area, leading to correspondingly high office vacancies in downtown San Francisco.
• San Francisco has long struggled with homelessness, drug use, and property crime, concentrated in several neighborhoods near the Financial District. While these problems predate the pandemic, they have become substantially worse since 2020 and remain at elevated levels, in part due to the absence of office workers.
• Many retailers in downtown have closed as a result of a combination of the factors listed above.
• The city's tax revenues are driven by the fortunes of its downtown ([15]).
• San Francisco has received a large amount of media attention around the potential for an "urban doom loop". In general, these articles discuss the interplay between two threads: remote work/office vacancies and the homelessness/drug use/property crime crisis ([16]). Some focus more on the former (e.g. WSJ and SF Standard) and other (FT and Curbed) on the latter.

The concept of an potential "urban doom loop" is not exclusive to San Francisco. It appears to have been coined in a business school case study of New York ([17]) around the first meaning above: shift to remote work > declining office real estate values > reduced tax revenues > cuts to public services > continued exodus from cities. Reliable sources have assessed the vulnerability of dozens of American cities to this cycle, and they indicate a wide range of uncertainty around whether this scenario will transpire ([18], [19], [20]). By contrast, the secondary meaning, as applied to concerns around public order, seems to be largely restricted to San Francisco. (To pick two other cities with widely reported struggles with homelessness, my searches for "Seattle doom loop" and "Los Angeles doom loop" return few results.)

To me, the essential question here seems to be whether the sheer volume of coverage around San Francisco's potential doom loop—driven by longstanding, well-documented problems related to homelessness that are largely separate from the way the term is used in other contexts—obligates us to discuss it in the lede. I believe that it does not. Certainly no one is suggesting that an encyclopedic summary of Charlotte, North Carolina deserves a mention of its struggling downtown office market (30% mortgage delinquency rate in 2023, per WaPo!). And if we were just considering San Francisco's homelessness crisis alone, I doubt that it would merit inclusion in the lede either. Washington, D.C. (rightfully) does not mention the surge in violent crime since 2020 in the lede; it is discussed in the "Crime" section below, where it can be properly contextualized against historical and national trends.

I appreciate your edits to the lede to present reliable sources both supporting and challenging the doom loop concept. But a single sentence cannot possibly do justice to what you accurately described as a "broad characterization of the city", one that is widely contested and used to describe several different urban trends. There is little encyclopedic value in taking a "some say this, some say that" approach in the most important section of the article—it demands a comprehensive explanation that is impossible to deliver given the space constraints. For those reasons, and to comply with the spirit of NPOV, I suggest that we omit the discussion of the "doom loop" from the lede and move the content to the "Economy" or "History" section instead. I would be happy to add some of the background that I've sketched out above. Conifer (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I think that's a great idea. I'll move it to the end of the History section, and that way you can expand upon it and clarify it as you wish. Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

References

New hi-res panoramic photos

Hey SF page editors, I have uploaded a couple of very high-resolution panoramic shots taken just a few days ago, maybe there's interest in using them in the article:

Market Street, San Francisco, night view

San Francisco centered around Market St

San Francisco at dusk

 podstawko  ●talk  04:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistent Source for Population Estimate

The population of San Francisco is listed for each decade, and the source is the United States Census. But at the very end of that list, rather than using the most recent United States Census Bureau estimate (which can be accessed at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/sanfranciscocountycalifornia), for some reason someone decided to trash the consistency of the list and cherry-pick a different source for the current population estimate. And the discrepancy between the official US Census Bureau estimate and that of the cherry-picked and inconsistent source is significant. Is this just local San Francisco fans cherry-picking a figure that they like better, or think paints their hometown in a more favorable light? What justifies the inconsistency? 2603:8001:8F00:79D2:14CB:EB78:526A:FB0F (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the cherry-picked source for the prior version of the estimate population (which I replaced with the most recent US Census Bureau figure to keep the list consistent) has a different and more recent estimate of San Francisco's population. So if we must be inconsistent and unjustifiably cherry-pick a different source, at least use the most recent figure from that source. 2603:8001:8F00:79D2:14CB:EB78:526A:FB0F (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I agree with you. I do not know why Wikipedia uses estimates or these so-called "guestimates" when citing the population of US cities, counties, or states. The US Census does an official count every ten year period. For these events, they send out representatives to actual count people. This event is done in every year ending in a zero, such as 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, etc. There is no reason that Wikipedia should be using estimates from any year that falls within these real counts. Just simply use the last official census count numbers, not estimates. Many times these estimates prove to be wrong once the official count is done. Not to mention, I've noticed some Wikipedia city articles give population data based on estimates, or from completely other entities than the US census itself. The only data that should be used is the every-ten-year- official US census count; nothing else. This way everything stays consistent within Wikipedia's articles. The administrator of this Wikipedia article on San Francisco keeps reverting everything back when somebody contributes something to the article, even if what they're contributing is true. 2600:8801:131C:6F00:780E:8958:D8C9:7B61 (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)