This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Pier 39 image
Panoramic image of Pier 39 was added to the article:
Panoramic view from Pier 39
and was immediately taken off with the edit summary: "Pier 39 panorama doesn't illustrate anything. This is an encyclopedia article, not a travel guide". I cannot understand it. I added high quality, high resolution panorama that shows the city, Golden Gate Bridge, Pier 39, wild sea lions living in the city'c center, and I am told "Pier 39 panorama doesn't illustrate anything"!!!???, and what does " not a travel guide" suppose to mean? I do not agree with the editor, who removed the image.--Two+two=4 (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the removal. The panorama above the one you posted File:San Francisco panorama from Twin Peaks.jpg shows a large amount of the city from one of the highest points on the city. The Pier 39 image on the other hand only shows a very small amount of the city from sea level. This article is about San Francisco from a broad encyclopedic perspective, and not trying to simply relay interesting places to visit. See WP:NOTTRAVEL for some more description on the matter. -Optigan13 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Almost every place in San Francisco is a tourist attraction. Pier 39 and wild sea lions that share docks witp people is one of the attractions. What is the difference between Lombard street for example and Pier 39? They both are tourist attractions and they both are parts of the city, the city's face if you want. As the article states: "Pier 39 near Fisherman's Wharf is the third-most popular tourist attraction in the nation". So what's wrong in having an image of Pier 39 in the article?--Two+two=4 (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
While San Francisco does have a large number of tourist attractions, it is rather myopic to say that almost every location is one. There are a couple differences between the Lombard street image and the Pier 39 image. First is that Lombard image is a small thumbnail, while the Pier 39 image is a large panorama. Also, the Lombard Street image is illustrating geography, specifically steep hills, of which Lombard is the most famous. We're trying not to overwhelm people with images by not adding images just because we can(See Wikipedia:Layout#Images), or just because they're featured on commons . We also do not generally start off an article with an 1200px image for the same reason (Pier 39), which is why I've reduced the size and moved the image further down in that article. -Optigan13 (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I added the image to the aricle not because it was featured on Commons but because the image illustrates " the third-most popular tourist attraction in the nation" and I see nothing wrong with that. How one could talk about San Francisco without talking about Pier 39? If "Lombard Street image is illustrating geography, specifically steep hills", Pier 39 image is illustrating both geography (San Francisco Bay) and wildlife (California Sea Lions). What other city in the world has wild sea lions in the middle of the city? Oh, yes, thanks for not removing Pier 39 image from Pier 39 article. It was really "considerate of you ;-)--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
San Francisco is a very photogenic city and tends to attract edits which add very good photos to the article. Unfortunately, we have to be very selective to keep the article from becoming an image-farm. When the article was nominated for a Featured Article Review, one of the complaints was that it had too many photographs and they were too big. Editors had to do some pruning to retain Featured Article status. We already have a photo illustrating tourism (Alcatraz in the Economy section). I really think the Alcatraz is a more iconic image to illustrate tourism.--Paul (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The panoramic Pier 39 photo is a fine image, no question. I don't see that it is appropriate to this article considering a) all the other fine images and b) the existing panoramic photo taken from high on the hills. The latter photo gives a much wider sense of the city. Binksternet (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
@Paul, how about illustrating wildlife of the city of San Francisco? Is this a valid subject to be represented in the article? --Two+two=4 (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
These are two mighty impressive photos! Good color saturation and a gazillion pixels. Did you make the double-image panorama with Photoshop, or does the camera do this for you? But although they are certainly better photos technically, they aren't necessarily better than the photos in the article for the purpose we need them. The Conservatory of Flowers is eye-popping crisp, but it is taken from an angle where trees obscure the end domes. The Crissy Beach photo is also very crisp, but the fog is a darker gray, and in it's 1x2 aspect ratio, is really small as a thumbnail; these two things together make it very hard to see the "fog" when placed into the article, which is point of the picture.--Paul (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It is a good idea, except I believe the image will not be allowed to stay there either, so I'm not even going to try.--Two+two=4 (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
<=I'm putting your fog-off-Crissy-Field photo in the article. Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It's a very high quality photo, but I think the aspect ratio and the color of the fog in the old photo better illustrate the point: fog, without having to click on the picture to see what it might be about.--Paul (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Paul about being able to make out the fog in the thumbnail size of the new image and have reverted back to the previous one. Also it appears that we need to add Wikipedia:Alternative text for images to the article. -Optigan13 (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Sister Cities
Information on Sister Cities was removed to a daughter article (Sister cities of San Francisco, California) during the Featured Article process as essentially being trivial and tangetally related. During the Featured Article Review process, the "See Also" link pointing to the Sister Cities Article was moved to the bottom of the article accessed by Links to related Articles -> City and County of San Francisco -> Government -> Sister Cities.--Paul (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Frisco?
I see on the sidebar it says the term "Frisco" is antiquated, yet the footnotes attached to it say nothing to that effect. The first is an article from 1918 documenting a local judge's anti-"Frisco" attitudes, and the third only says that it is a tourist term, and some locals prefer not to use it. The second article says something completely different: "Frisco, that once-verboten term for the city by the bay, is making a comeback among the young and hip." Meaning that currently San Francisco people are calling their city Frisco. It seems to me like the person who put the (antiquated) note was anti-"Frisco" and was hoping no one would check the sources.--Mikeazorin (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the parenthetical "antiquated" isn't necessary. I don't, however, feel that "Frisco" is making any more headway these days than it ever was. Pop culture reporter James Sullivan also said in his article that people were using "the Sco" to refer to San Francisco, but whoa! I've never heard that one. I'd take Sullivan with a grain of salt. At any rate, "Frisco" remains a nickname today, even if hated or not often used. The point is that if you say "Frisco" anywhere near San Francisco, everybody will know what you are talking about. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Frisco is generally referred to as the "F" word, and will almost guarantee you bad tables and even worse treatment and service if overheard. If you really want to blend in, try using "The City." Also, just north of The City is referred to as "The Country." User:stryteler—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.88.162 (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I figure it will be hard to find the reputable source to document whether Frisco is a favored term or not. Maybe someone can go get someone from the linguistics department at UC Berkeley to write an article about it. ;-) I wouldn't be surprised if some hipsters use the term "Frisco" just to be ironic--but I'd be pretty surprised if they were serious when they used it. Honestly, if you took a poll of Bay Area residents asking them what term they used to refer to San Francisco I'd bet "The City" "San Fran" "SF" and "SFO" would all come in ranked higher than "Frisco." Maybe someone should do that poll.
It's like nails on a chalkboard to most people in the Bay Area. The issue isn't that they won't understand you. The issue is that they'll think you're an oblivious idiot. The only people I've heard refer to San Francisco in a non-ironic way as "Frisco" are 1) Old people over the age of about 60, 2) Tourists or people who have lived here less than a year, 3) poor urban youth visiting San Francisco from Oakland.
Obviously, this isn't published anywhere and is regional knowledge, but I a resurgence of "Frisco" seems completely bogus to me. The word "Frisco" is actually a shibboleth in the Bay Area that tells the residents that you're either a tourist, a newbie or an idiot. Perhaps "San Fran" has also become a shibboleth. If they don't say the full name, most Bay Area residents I know say "The City" or "SF" when they talk about doing something in San Francisco. "SFO" personally drives me insane since to me "SFO" is the airport, not the city, but I hear people use it more than "Frisco."
Here's where No Original Research falls on its face. Any long-term Resident of the Bay Area will tell you that Frisco is not to be used. It is undignified. It has been so, in fact, at least since Emperor Norton declared "Whoever after due and proper warning shall be heard to utter the abominable word "Frisco", which has no linguistic or other warrant, shall be deemed guilty of a High Misdemeanor, and shall pay into the Imperial Treasury as penalty the sum of twenty-five dollars." He may have been a nut, but on this score everybody agrees with varying levels of seriousness depending upon how close you reside. The nicks locals use are, as above, "The City", "San Francisco", "SF", and "San Fran"(rare, used among "family"), SFO is the airport in San Bruno. "Frisco" should not be labeled antiquated, but rather, disfavored or stronger.24.6.207.95 (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Luckily for the wiki, personal observations and opinions are not what is used in the articles. We use reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
"The City" is only used by pretentious SF snobs who think the universe revolves around San Francisco. Give me a break. SF is just 12% of the Bay Area's entire population and there are two other major "City's" in the region. One of then has 200,000 more residents than "The City."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.215.121 (talk) 02:27, August 16, 2011
"Frisco" has long been verboten among the white middle- and upper-classes, but among working class folks it's never had that sort of stigma, and indeed "Frisco" is commonly heard in SF and East Bay rap and on the streets in some of the rougher parts of the city. Even Herb Caen admitted towards the end of his life that "the toughest guys on the old S.F. waterfront, neither rubes nor tourists, called it Frisco." People who claim that "no one from San Francisco calls it Frisco" say that either because they wish to distinguish themselves from the "undesirables" living in the Fillmore and Hunters Point, or simply because they've heard this mantra from someone else and are just blindly repeating it. "Don't call it Frisco" is classist, ignorant, and myopic.
And BTW "The City" is not only used by "pretentious SF snobs." It's used (and has been for a long, long time) by lots of people all over the Bay Area to refer to what, for most of the region's history, has been the cultural and economic capital of the region and Northern California as a whole. It wasn't until 1990 that San Jose surpassed SF population-wise, and in many ways SF is still the focal point of the Bay Area. So it is and will continue to be "The City" in the eyes of many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.128.78 (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Sister Cities
Information on Sister Cities was removed to a daughter article (Sister cities of San Francisco, California) during the Featured Article process as essentially being trivial and tangetally related. During the Featured Article Review process, the "See Also" link pointing to the Sister Cities Article was moved to the bottom of the article accessed by Links to related Articles - > City and County of San Francisco - > Government - > Sister Cities.--Paul (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
On the Ulaanbaatar page, it has San Francisco listed as a sister city which conflicts with the statement that San Francisco has 18 sister cities (of which Ulaanbataar is not one) on the San Francisco page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CnutTheGreatDane (talk • contribs) 02:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I moved the slightly misleading "reported": the article's numbers are derived from the stated source, not reported by it. Parenthesized the derived result.
Rephrased the "ranks" sentence: no such thing as "FBI's 2009 City Crime Rate Rankings". In fact the FBI prominentlyCautions Against Ranking. --Lexein (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Correction - the FBI meant ranking to compare law enforcement agencies, not city ranking. --Lexein (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Reference to "Largest Employers" is outdated, Can someone either update it delete it
Reference 141, Which reads,
^ "San Francisco Business Information: Largest Employers in San Francisco" (Microsoft Word). San Francisco Business Times Book of Lists, 2007. San Francisco Center for Economic Development. http://www.sfced.org/docs/Largest_Employers_in_SF_2007.doc. Retrieved June 9, 2008.
Is stale and points to a non-existent page. I have attempted to re-locate it on that web site with no success. Is there someone who can update this reference or delete it if it can't be found ?
Yeah, this is something like my 3rd interaction with the Wikipedia community, so please be nice here. Valleyboy17 (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
No snark? Where's the fun in that? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Done Yeah, there's an app for that, heh. Good looking out for the dead link. Read all about dead links at WP:LINKROT. --Lexein (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Education
As a San Francisco resident that works in education, I am concerned about a statement in the section on Education, specifically in the "Primary and Secondary schools" section. The last line, "The largest private school in San Francisco, Cornerstone Academy, is a Christian school." First any claim that something is the "largest" must be substantiated with evidence, and there is no reference cited with this claim. Secondly, and this point admittedly has no substantiation, but the statement seems to be more of an attempt at advertisement, given that there's a link to its own Wikipedia page. And given San Francisco's reputation, the fact that it illuminates the religious affiliation of the school makes the entry all the more suspect.
I would urge the editors to review this entry and remove this line.
71.202.127.219 (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Eric Godoy email redacted per policy--Lexein (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Done - removed unsourced advertising WP:ADV claim about a single school of unestablished notability WP:NOTE. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list or a catalog WP:NOTCATALOG. Reliably sourced statistics about private schools would be welcomed. Discuss. This includes you, Eric. WP:Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. --Lexein (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Lexein - thank you for removing that reference. I have tried to find some reliable information regarding private school enrollment. What I've found is this: http://www.privateschoolreview.com/county_elementary_schools/stateid/CA/county/6075, which lists the elementary schools and their size, and http://www.privateschoolreview.com/county_high_schools/stateid/CA/county/6075 which has the high schools listed. I cannot speak for how reliable the information is, but as you can see there are many schools with high amounts of enrollment, and since this entry is for Primary and Secondary education, the question remains as to why there would be mention of one single school without any significant distinction (like Lowell High School, being the oldest high school west of the Mississippi). I hope that provides enough info.
I believe the new montage photo does not work; The Bridge is cut in half, and the top of the skyline is cut off (not to mention the painted ladies are cut in half). The photo in question is on the left. The photo on the right is one that I came up with. I think it flows better than the current montage. Thoughts? - RK-SFO
I don't like either montage. Instead of the infobox presenting an iconic photo of the city, these montages trivialize the content of the articles they head by condensing photos already in the article into a "lookers digest". The montages are un-encyclopedic, looking like the front cover of a Fodors guidebook. We already have a wikitravel site, and I have no problem with these montages being used there, but I think they are an unfortunate fad/trend that should be resisted on Wikipeida. In removing the view of the city from the Marin Headlands and replacing it with a monatage, an iconic view of the entire city has been lost to be replaced by a cliche-ridden pastiche of tourist pictures that are already in the article. I'd prefer restoring the picture of San Francisco and the Golden Gate bridge from the Marin Headlands. --Paul (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd also be in favor of restoring the the original picture. But if we have to have a montage, I really don't want it to be the current one. - RK-SFO
That makes two of us in favor of reverting. Let's wait a few days and see if anyone else has an opinion.--Paul (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems the SF montage was inserted by a single-use account who is a "serial-montagist." Here is someone on the Paris page who doesn't like this fad either. (And the Paris montage was reverted). --Paul (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Put the first montage. Considering that montages are becoming almsot universal no city artciles now, if you disagree with this, please upload a new montage with different pictures reather than removing it outright.Dolphin Jedi (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why the SF article must have a montage. There are plenty of cities that still have single pictures; Paris, Buffalo, Colorado Springs, etc. Now, with no offense to the author, I think the current one doesn't look at all good. I will wait to see if anyone else has an opinion on this, if not, I will add my montage. If there's anyone who does not like my attempt, then create another one. - RK-SFO (talk) 18:00, October 3, 1010 (UTC)
Personally I don't see why a montage is needed at all. I reverted to the previous image until the editors of this page can decide 1) whether to have a montage and then 2)what the photo should be, in that order. --64.81.57.93 (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. I know I've said it before but for the sake of this decision, I will put my vote for the single picture. - RK-SFO (talk) 16:15, October 4, 1010 (UTC)
Apologies I recently added the first montage after seeing it on the Spanish wikipedia page for San Francisco and thought it was much more eye watering than the current photo without having seen this discussion. Let me make my case for changing it - As a San Francisco resident I think the existing photo (with no offence intended to the photographer) doesn't really capture the essence of San Francisco or the iconic Golden Gate Bridge and is in need of a refresh (it has been there for so so long). The skyline is not very visible neither is the GG bridge. Something like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GoldenGateBridge-001.jpg which shows the bridge in its entirety in my opinion would be better. Jdlrobson (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
That image is a smashing success for people who want to highlight the Golden Gate Bridge. I don't think it serves quite as well for a focus centering on San Francisco. Binksternet (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Economy second photo
As there appears to be some disagreement about what image is best for the 2nd one in the economy section, it's best we start some sort of discussion here. I prefer FinancialNorth.jpg, since it shows a significant part of the financial district, while SanFranciscoEmbarcadero.jpg is farther back and doesn't show as clearly or with the same detail, and the infobox image File:SF From Marin Highlands3.jpg shows the comprehensive skyline without those issues. Montgomery street is a little too close, and only shows the Wells Fargo building and the Trans America building, and I'm not sure it shows the size of the financial district well. I'm open to something else either in Commons:Category:San Francisco, California or somewhere else, but right now I'd prefer to stick with FinancialNorth.jpg. -Optigan13 (talk) 10:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has one of the largest collections of U.S. Currency
I've added a 4th possibility which has an explicit financial theme, though it isn't actually in the Financial District. Of the three original choices, I also prefer FinancialNorth.jpg, as it specifically highlights the skyline of the financial district. SanFranciscoEmbarcadero.jpg is just another skyline picture, of which there are already enough in the article.--Paul (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
FinancialNorth is not and never was a good choice. For starters it does show the whole skyline (it actually shows Chinatown and Russian Hill more). I chose the second one because This picture shows the WHOLE Financial District, Embarcadero, the Bay and Pier 39. All three areas the most representative of the economy of SF and not just some picture that has a few buildings and placing the overemphasis on finance. The forth photo is actually inaccurate. The Federal Reserve is no longer located in that building and hasn't been for years. And, like the last one, it places too much emphasis on banking and finance which is no longer a major part of SF's economy and hasn't been for years. Eman007 10:22, 04 January 2009 (UTC)
I think my issue is that so many of the pictures have already covered tourism (which I'm lumping the Embarcadero and Pier 39 into) as well as two wide skylines (the infobox and the panorama). FinancialNorth is limited in size, while the SFEmbarcadero image doesn't scale well, with the buildings limited to about a third of the image. I feel like we've already shown the Bay in several previous images already. I tried cropping SFEmbarcadero to something that would scale well, but even at 300px it is still a bit compressed. Right now with the image removed I'm thinking that might be best right now, since as we've noted numerous times the article tends to have a problem with people adding too many images, so the article might be better off without a second one in the economy section. If there was a source on what the current breakdown of industry in San Francisco we could also maybe come up with an infographic as a possibility. The current 2nd paragraph focuses on the rise of the financial industry, which is why a finance industry image would help. I'm not sure there is an image of some SoMa building that would show the San Jose connection or a Biotech connection. -Optigan13 (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The Financial District photo in the Economy section is terrible ("San Francisco skyline from Potrero Hill.jpg"). It doesn't really show the FiDi very well and has a highway and some ugly warehouses or half-constructed condos in the foreground. I see this has been a serial problem with this article, considering the discussion further up on this talk page. Any of the photos in that section ("FinancialNorth.jpg"; "Montgomerystreetsf.jpg"; "Federal Reserve Band (San Francisco).jpg") except #2 (SanFranciscoEmbarcadero.jpg) would be fine as a replacement, and even the cropped version of #2 is better than the one currently there now. Thoughts?--64.81.57.93 (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I see somebody inserted the current FiDi photo without my noticing. I agree, it is quite unremarkable. I'm going to replace it with "FinancialNorth.jpg" and see what happens.--Paul (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I, too, prefer FinancialNorth.jpg to the other shots. Its composition is superior. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I see you guys are making consensus without consensus. I changed that photo months ago, and no one said a word.
As seen previously, a consensus was never 100% reached as to what should be a proper photo there and it was decided that NO photo should be there until something. Paul, again due to his biases went ahead and put it back, even though as mentioned before, it does not show the ENTIRE Fi-Di and actually shows more Chinatown and Russian Hill, not to mention, no one really agreed to putting one back in the first place. I'm actually going to go out and take a much better version today, taking advantage of the clear weather we've been having. Eman007 (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that editors should accuse other editors of bad faith or imply unsocial motives to them, but I do think it is acceptable to defend oneself against such charges. As anyone can see from the comments in this Talk section there is no consensus for the "Financial District" image taken from Portreo Hill that editor Eman007 insists on inserting into the article despite his (or her) claims to the contrary in edit summaries. To the contrary, it is clear from the record that no one, save Eman007 thinks it is a proper image, and no one save Eman007 thinks there is anything wrong with "FinancialNorth." "FinancialNorth" is a superior image, because it does not have distracting foreground clutter, and because it is limited to a section of the skyline anchored by two iconic Financial District buildings, the Transamerica Pyramid, and the Bank of America tower. It is not perfect, but of the several choices being championed here, it is clearly the superior one. I would like to work with Eman007 to improve the San Francisco article, but find it hard to do so in a adversarial environment.--Paul (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Well Paul, perhaps you should follow your own words if you claim to "like to work with Eman007 to improve the San Francisco article, but find it hard to do so in a adversarial environment." For starters, the record shows from the original discussion back from back in December 2009, there was no consensus reached and none for months. Its only when I added a photo a few months ago, when you, only recently as last acted arbitrarily on your own and changed the picture based on one approval from an unregistered user quoting your words "and see what happens." Did you reach a consensus? No. Did you bother contact me personally about my decision or restart the debate? No. Because you entitle yourself as custodian of this page, you feel the need to arbitrarily make decisions based on your opinions. And you call others "anti-social"?
The last time I checked, and especially according to the rules, a Wikipedia consensus has to have more than just two users, i.e: you and one other person. Just because you've spent the most time working on this article, doesn't make it your own and give you the ability to arbitrarily make decisions and changes to it as i've seen you do for countless other edits on this page. As I mentioned, i'm going to call in an admin to settle this fairly since it doesn't seem you want to do so on your end. This is Wikipedia, not your own personal page and/or blog. --Eman007 (talk) 03:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
A small correction, there are three editors who prefer the "FinancialNorth" image, Binksternet, 64.81.57.93, and myself. Only Eman007 doesn't like it and is waging a war of one to remove it from the article, so no one is claiming a consensus of two. The same three editors think that "San Francisco skyline from Potrero Hill" is a poor quality image. More broadly, to your claim of "no consensus":
"One or more editors who oppose a viewpoint that many other editors support may engage in tendentious editing practices where they refuse to allow consensus they don't agree with and are willing to perpetuate arguments indefinitely, effectively "filibustering" the discussion."
"Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best. Sometimes a rough consensus is enough to move forward."
"Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system."
Also, when you go to your Admin for help, be sure to mention that you broke the 3-Revert Rule during this petty fight, by reverting "FinancialNorth" four times in 24 hours.-Paul (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
You are being a hypocrite yourself in the regard that you yourself violated Improper Consensus Buildingwhen you ignored the discussion dating back from December 2009. You are simply abusing user power then accusing me of doing so. You also ignored my requests to wait until an Admin settles this, and then lied saying that "I want to work together with you" when it appears you have no intention. The record is all there. Why you continue to lie in the face of the record being present is appalling. You yourself need to read this: How experienced editors avoid being dragged into edit wars. The Administrator will see in the record that you continue to ignore, that you made zero attempt to engage in discussion. You need to read this carefully yourself:
[is consensus?]
How not to achieve consensus
Don't edit war.
Don't simply state your position over and over, without explaining your underlying concerns and interests.
Don't canvass other editors who agree with you.
Don't give up when people disagree on a specific proposal.
Don't take a hard line position to extract concessions from other editors. This often backfires, and undermines the reasonableness of your viewpoint.
Don't question the other party's motive.
You also reverted Financial North too 4 times in 24 hours as well. I can and will also say you and Binksternet are ganging up on me which constitutes as abuse. I've filed a WQA against you and Binksternet.
Eman007 (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Why would you think I am joining Paulh to gang up on you? I am simply looking at images and selecting the ones I think are better.
Your perception of what constitutes consensus appears flawed to me. Your edit summaries cry out against three editors reverting the changes of one editor (yourself) as going against consensus. I would like to point out that consensus is a fluid concept, with old patterns thrown out the moment that new patterns emerge. The greater weight of argument on the talk pages appears to have established a new consensus against you. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
But you are joining Paulh. You messaged me privately and filed the 3R complaint that was tossed out. You are the only two editors commenting on this so far, and yet, you both continue to lie and exaggerate that you both are the overreaching consensus and decision makers on this page.
Why don't you don't listen to me for a change and wait for an Admin to decide and the WQA to be settled, rather than continue to talk and thus keep pouring gasoline into the fire? Eman007 (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not see any filing by you at this time at the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts page. If there was one there which mentioned my actions here, I would have answered it.
As for joining Paulh, I have no idea who he his, nor do I care. I am all by myself in my decision to look at photos and decide which ones I prefer. If you think I lie or exaggerate, a serious accusation, I would like to know where I did that.
I will continue to discuss this issue here on the talk page whether or not an admin shows up to help it out. I will not wait for the cavalry, however. I feel quite justified in making my own decisions, and I know which images make more sense to me.
The 'gasoline' and the 'fire' are your words, not mine. I consider this kerfuffle to be a tempest in a teapot. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Three days after this, a talk thread about the image choices was started by Optigan13. He gave his opinion that FinancialNorth was the one he preferred. Paul.h commented and agreed. A week passed without further comment, and on January 3 Paul.h reverted back to FinancialNorth, seeing that unanimity had been reached.
The next day, Eman007 offered his thoughts on the talk page discussion, saying FinancialNorth was never a good choice. Seven hours later, he removed the image, with no replacement, with the edit summary: "You didn't have much of a discussion or talk with anyone before you arbitrarily acted on your own. How about NO picture until a REAL consensus based on wikipedia guidelines is done." This showed a lack of understanding of what consensus means—three editors had opposed him alone. Optigan13 posted three days later on the talk page saying that perhaps the image removal was best for now. Paul.h and the IP editor did not comment.
The image remained removed from the article for seven months. In August 2010, Eman007 slipped File:San Francisco skyline from Potrero Hill.jpg into the article without an edit summary, and nobody commented until an IP editor brought the subject up again on the talk page in October, suggesting three options to replace Eman007's preferred image (which no other editor had thought best), one including the image FinancialNorth. Paul.h responded to the editor three days later, agreeing with FinancialNorth, and he swapped the questionable one out with FinancialNorth.
Five days later, Eman007 reverted Paul.h with the edit summary "This is a better and more RECENT image of the Financial District." He was reverted by an IP editor saying "I don't care if this photo was taken 5 minutes ago. This photo is terrible. Restore Paul.h's photo."
The next day, Eman007 reverted the IP editor with no edit summary. I reverted Eman007, saying "rv no consensus for that image." Eman007 responded on the talk page, saying "I see you guys are making consensus without consensus. I changed that photo months ago, and no one said a word." This to me indicates yet again that Eman007 does not 'get' consensus. If three editors are facing him down in a decision, he must bring it to the talk page and try to convince them, not persist in reversions and edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
You resorting to dishonesty is disgusting and vile Binksternet.
For starters, dating back to the original discussion back in December 2009, while the user Optigan liked FinancialNorth1, he preferred a cropped version of the fourth photo, to which no including PaulH or you for that matter said anything as clearly noted in the discussion. As i'm saying again for the umpteenth time and as the record showed, no decision was made and the discussion ended. Paulh, or you did not say anything. If he wanted the photo then, why didn't he continue to press his case then and convince a consensus then? I would've left it at that then, but instead he and other editors remained silent. I didn't restart the discussion because I assumed that the editors simply lost interest, or didn't have the time.
Furthermore, I did not "slip in" as you disgustingly, dishonestly, facetiously say. I only added that photo because I noticed for the time being that no one had made a decision since the original discussion back in January. Again, no one did anything for months. You and Paulh cannot claim you didn't see the change, because you made several other edits throughout the article for months.
Again, Paul did not form a consensus prior to the change, or continue the discussion where it had left off. Once again, he instead changed the photo, got a "consensus" from Binksternet. The IP editor liked the photo, but, quoting the editor again:
"Any of the photos in that section ("FinancialNorth.jpg"; "Montgomerystreetsf.jpg"; "Federal Reserve Band (San Francisco).jpg") except #2 (SanFranciscoEmbarcadero.jpg) would be fine as a replacement, and even the cropped version of #2 is better than the one currently there now. Thoughts?--64.81.57.93 (talk)"
"I'm going to replace it with "FinancialNorth.jpg" and see what happens."
The crux of it was that Paulh made the change before even Binksternet approved it, or I or other editors could respond.
Binksternet's abusive little crusade against me shows my point that he and Paul have no interest in perusing collaborative editing efforts. Despite my reverts, I at least agreed to having a discussion and a "photo choosing contest" as it were. Paulh did not and Binksternet is now acting as some kind of enforcing. I don't see Binksternet asking the IP editor in question or other editors to the SF article including Optigan13 have their say either in this. He is not apologizing to me and asking that we resume the discussion and consensus, something that at least Paulh did earlier. Only showing his intentions as pure slander towards me as attempt to have me banned purely because he disagrees with my edits or whatever personal victory he may get by flaming me. - Eman007 (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, this one just went off the rails somewhat; Eman007 just got blocked for for 24 hours for personal attacks against me and Paul.h over at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Let's all keep the discussion calm and sensible, sticking to the topic at hand. With some careful civility and good faith, we should be able to straighten out all the photo concerns.
Right now, an IP editor, Paul.h and myself believe the File:FinancialNorth.jpg is best suited to the Financial section of the article. Eman007 does not. If this dynamic shifts because of new photos or new editors, we can revisit it. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I also prefer File:FinancialNorth.jpg at the moment. Although a left alignment and using File: instead of File: would be nice. The crop was an attempt at some sort of compromise, as was leaving it without an image until someone had the time/energy to attempt a better picture. Sorry, but arguing about this image just seems unproductive when there are many other articles that need work, and working extensively on this article produces diminishing returns. I haven't been keeping a very close eye on my watchlist so if somebody wants me to chime in on something drop a note on my talk page. -Optigan13 (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
This is the IP editor returning to the discussion here. Just clarifying that I indeed prefer FinancialNorth.jpg over the SF Skyline from Potrero Hill picture for the Economy section. While I'm willing to consider other photos, it's probably best to leave it as FinancialNorth until we are able to have a constructive discussion.--64.81.57.93 (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Panorama Photo
A while back the panorama was replaced with a new one which was advertised as "higher resolution" and "better exposed." There's no doubt that the new one has more pixels, but I prefer the older one, as it has much more flattering lighting (taken at dusk) and the atmophere was more clear, paradoxically allowing better detail even though it is lower resolution. I'd like to revert to the earlier panorama. Both of them are presented below for comparison:
Any comments or opinions?Paul (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the previous image. The shadows help show more detail, the new one shows as a wash of gray concrete through a haze. Nice try at updating the image as the dusk panorama though, as some of the newer high rises are missing(I forget what the new one is over by the bay bridge). -Optigan13 (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there are a number of buildings missing from the earlier image, One Rincon Hill, Millennium Tower, and the Intercontinental Hotel. Some windy, clear day, I'll have to haul my camera up Mt. Davidson or Twin Peaks and work on getting an updated panorama. --Paul (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the golden hour sunset shot, no matter the missing buildings. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Sunset photo is prettier but its not recent. As mentioned above, many new additions to the skyline are missing. It makes the article look bad if we're putting up old and outdated photos. This isn't Flickr, this is Wikipedia. We really shouldn't be sacrificing accuracy and being up to date over aesthetics. Go with the top one until someone takes a better shot. Eman007 (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I think a poorly composed image "makes the article look bad", not an out-of-date photo. Anybody wishing to get that much out of a panorama is working too hard, anyhow. The recent buildings that are not represented as tiny towers in the panorama are certainly available, if notable, at their own articles. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
People are supposed to be reading the article and getting information from it. Not looking at photos. If they want a gallery of photos, or artistic photos in a wikiformat, that's what wikimedia.org is for. Encyclopedia articles are the point of Wikipedia and photos just are visual aids to the articles if anything. Putting up an outdated photo by 8 to 10 years, but because "its pretty" doesn't do an article, especially on a city, justice. Its not the recent and up to date information a Wikipedia article is supposed to be. If you look at articles for all the other major cities, you'll see the same thing. Just aids in what city looks like and nothing else. Not a showcase for professional photographers to post.
Paul is right. Just go up to Twin Peaks and take a better photo. The time of year and weather right now is perfect for it.
Well, we're debating the philosophy of images, now. As seen by the usual reader, the photo with more buildings does not actually give more information: none of the buildings are labeled. Most readers will simply skim over the image to get an impression, not scan it deeply for specific relationships, like how many blocks SF MOMA is from the doomed Bay Bridge Terminal building. The quick impression is the line I look to when deciding which of two images are the best. If one truly held more information (perhaps with pixel-level links to place names, etc.) available to the short-attention-span reader, I would select it. Binksternet (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Binksternet it seems that you completely missed my point. This isn't about "image philosophy" or details, or anything like that. You seem to be confused as well with the notion that articles are also supposed to serve as photo galleries, to which they are not. Its an encyclopedia article. Again, if they want to look at pretty pictures, there are plenty of other places online where they can view them. San Francisco's skyline has undergone many changes in the last 5 years and its dishonest, changes that have been mentioned in other wikipedia article, and not to show that to people looking up information on the city and show them a instead 8 year old photo just because it "looks prettier".
As i'm mentioning yet again, I don't see why we can just settle for now until someone goes and takes a different picture. If any of you lives in SF, or the Bay Area, can't you just take some time out to go up to Twin Peaks and take a photo if it is bothering you so much? The weather is perfect for it.
Eman007 (talk) 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not confused. Images should look good and give information. A 'blah' picture of the skyscrapers of SF, all crowded together and almost indistinct from each other, is not preferable to a 'pretty' picture showing much the same content. I would like to see a reader who has never visited San Francisco choose which image to run here... the point being that the new reader does not care about a few new buildings missing. The general impression is kept. Me, I always vote for pretty pictures if that is an option. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
It isn't only that it is a more attractive photo, it is also easier to use for looking at the details of the city. There's too much haze and the light is flat in the current photo, while the oblique light and shadows in the older photo provide more contrast and relief and you can see the details easier. -Paul (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Another photo showed up today, one with a greater width but some of the same problems of clarity.
Here are some more up-to-date options for the Cityscape image:
Please share your thoughts and suggestions. BDS2006 (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Central Pacific Railroad paragraph in History section
A very knowledgeable and enthusiastic editor recently added a paragraph to the History section devoted to the Central Pacific Railroad. It is good information, but it duplicates information in the CPRR article, and is too detailed for an eleven-paragraph section covering the entire history of the city, giving undue weight to the CPRR in this article. I have made the changes below to cut it back to something more appropriate, adding a link to the CPRR article so readers can more readily access the details of the establishment of the railroad and its relationship to San Francisco:
OLD:
Entrepreneurs sought to capitalize on the wealth generated by the Gold Rush. Early winners were the banking industry, which saw the founding of Wells Fargo in 1852, and the Bank of California in 1864, while the development of the Port of San Francisco established the city as a center of trade. San Francisco's business activity was further enhanced with the establishment in 1869 of a continuous overland railroad link connecting the Bay Area to the Eastern US trunk rail system via the Central Pacific Railroad. Built between 1863 and 1869 by a group of then Sacramento-based magnates led by former (1862-63) California Gov. Leland Stanford known as the the Big Four, the new line constituted the western portion the Pacific Railroad (aka the First Transcontinental Railroad) that was authorized by the U.S. Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864. Partially financed (albeit reluctantly) by a major San Francisco bond issue made in 1865, the CPRR moved its headquarters to the city from Sacramento in 1874. Its operations were later taken over by the Southern Pacific Railroad under a long term lease made in 1885.[1]
CPRR logo
Catering to the needs and tastes of the growing population, Levi Strauss opened a dry goods business and Domingo Ghirardelli began manufacturing chocolate. Immigrant laborers made the city a polyglot culture, with Chinese railroad workers creating the city's Chinatown quarter. The first cable cars carried San Franciscans up Clay Street in 1873. The city's sea of Victorian houses began to take shape, and civic leaders campaigned for a spacious public park, resulting in plans for Golden Gate Park. San Franciscans built schools, churches, theaters, and all the hallmarks of civic life. The Presidio developed into the most important American military installation on the Pacific coast.[2] By the turn of the century, San Francisco was a major city known for its flamboyant style, stately hotels, ostentatious mansions on Nob Hill, and a thriving arts scene.[3]
NEW:
Entrepreneurs sought to capitalize on the wealth generated by the Gold Rush. Early winners were the banking industry, which saw the founding of Wells Fargo in 1852, and the Bank of California in 1864, while the development of the Port of San Francisco established the city as a center of trade. The the Big Four, headed by Leland Stanford launched the Central Pacific Railroad which in 1869 connected San Francisco to the eastern United States via a direct overland link. Catering to the needs and tastes of the growing population, Levi Strauss opened a dry goods business and Domingo Ghirardelli began manufacturing chocolate. Immigrant laborers made the city a polyglot culture, with Chinese railroad workers creating the city's Chinatown quarter. The first cable cars carried San Franciscans up Clay Street in 1873. The city's sea of Victorian houses began to take shape, and civic leaders campaigned for a spacious public park, resulting in plans for Golden Gate Park. San Franciscans built schools, churches, theaters, and all the hallmarks of civic life. The Presidio developed into the most important American military installation on the Pacific coast.[4] By the turn of the century, San Francisco was a major city known for its flamboyant style, stately hotels, ostentatious mansions on Nob Hill, and a thriving arts scene.[5]
I think the shorter version is sufficient.Paul (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
It was actually spilling over from the healthcare section. Not sure why it was initially added in, but I don't feel it's inclusion is especially helpful. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Photo quality too low for show. Binksternet (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Baghdad by the Bay?
Is this really appropriate for a Wikipedia article? I have never heard the nickname and it seems to me that it is meant to be highly offensive to San Franciscans . . . if we are going to put derogatory nicknames on Wikipedia articles "La la land" should be added to Los Angeles, "Land of steers and queers" should be added to Texas, and so on. I am going to remove it until someone gives a good reason why it should be put back on the page. --CASportsFan (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It is not derogatory, it dates from the early 1950's and was how Herb Caen referred to the city. If you were older or better read, you would have heard of it.--Paul (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why our questioner would see it as derogatory? Would it be a view based on relatively recent events when his President told him that the guy in charge there was evil? Would it be based on the fact that his country's military has bombed the crap out of the place? If so, that's a very narrow and restricted view. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
See the Herb Caen article, especially the early years section. As mentioned, comparing a city to Baghdad in 1949 had a very different meaning then it does today. Personally, I find Frisco far more offensive. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, Caen used it in an affectionate way, and in 1949 wrote a book with that title. California historian Kevin Starr wrote in 2009 that Caen was "advancing" the term by 1950, not that he coined the term. Starr said, "The Baghdad metaphor had as its first premise a sense of enchantment", as if SF was where genies and flying carpets might be found, rather than the observer's dull home city of, say, Cleveland. The newly arrived San Franciscan could shed his old worries and remake himself. Binksternet (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Fine. After further reading the above comments, I have realized that it was not meant to be offensive or derogatory, HOWEVER, I am going to add onto the the page that the nickname is antiquated because it is clearly not in use anymore and would probably be someone offensive to an unknowing San Franciscan. Even though Baghdad is an extremely cultured and historical city, being compared to it would not be considered positive to many people in the modern day. --CASportsFan (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's antiquated per-se, so much as a Herb Caen-ism. I doubt it was ever in widespread use. Many San Franciscans are aware of the Caen connection, and wouldn't deem it offensive. It always evoked something quaint and nostalgic, like Fog City, Barbary Coast, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Antiquate maybe, but never 'offensive'. The old Herb Caen connotation of Baghdad does not flex with new political situations; it will always be a fabled connection to a fabled city, the cradle of civilization. Binksternet (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
It is not the least bit antiquated, it is a well-known nickname that is near and dear to the hearts of (us)longtime San Franciscans and I still hear it used regularly. CaliforniaAndie (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
San Fran
The nickname "San Fran" is also discouraged. AmericanLeMans (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
by Friscoites, of course. (i think the commonest names are: SF, San Francisco, the City. San Fran and Frisco are ugh. Baghdad by the Bay is antiquated, no one CALLS it that, unless they are writing about the Caen period, likewise City By The Bay, you dont say "im going to the City by the bay today".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Where is San Francisco's Crime Section?
San Francisco has a significant crime problem which is ignored in Wikipedia. The reference material for San Francisco is all rainbows and sunshine. There are no negative references at all. This reads like an article written by the San Francisco Visitors and Convention Bureau. I feel we need a new crime section for San Francisco. Events like the shooting of the German tourist near Union Square along with the epedimic of homicides and shootings in and near San Francisco nightclubs should be included. The fact that San Francisco has the highest crime rate in California for cities with population of 500,000 and greater, should be included in the crime sectioin. The violence in San Francisco's downtown neighborhoods of the Tenderloin, 6th Street, Mid Market, and Civic Center should be mentioned. The increase in the homicide rate for 2011 needs to be noted as well as historical studies like the Georgia State University study which ranked SF #1 in homicides for thre consecutive years in 2005,2006,and 2007, after adjustments for demographics, should be included as a historical reference to crime in San Francisco. Also, the killing of San Francisco Mayor George Mascone as well as the killing of Harvey Milk should be included as a historical peprpective of crime in San Francisco. Any feed back would be appreciated.24.23.231.199 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Although there is no crime section in the article, the subject is mentioned in the demographics section where it says: "Rates of reported violent and property crimes for 2009 (736 and 4,262 incidents per 100,000 residents, respectively) are slightly lower than for similarly sized U.S. cities." I just updated the sentence to use 2009 data, and the rates of crime went down from 2008 to 2009 and the conclusion about the rates being slightly lower than similarly sized U.S. cities is still correct. San Francisco doesn't have a gang problem like Los Angeles does, nor does it have a Mafia problem like New York City. What it does have is an average amount of crime common to urban cities of a similar size; so I remain unconvinced that "San Francisco has a significant crime problem which is ignored in Wikipedia." As to a few of the specifics brought up above: mentioning an increase in homicide rates for 2011 less than a month into 2011, seems premature, and for an encyclopedia article it is the trend and the comparison to averages that matters not one instance. This is also the problem with mentioning that a German tourist was shot in Union Square. How many tourists have died from violent crime in San Francisco over the last 50 years? Is this the only one? Is this a trend? The Tenderloin is already mentioned as a high crime area of the city. I don't know how Georgia State University manipulated the numbers to rank San Francisco as the leading U.S. homicide city, but just here in California Oakland, Stockton, Fresno, Long Beach, Bakersfield, Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and Sacramento all have higher homicide rates than San Francisco. And linking the Moscone/Milk murders to general crime in San Francisco is ludicrous (though it is a significant historical event which is mentioned in that context in the article). Many city articles have a daughter article "Crime in X" which is referred to from the main city article. Why don't you start a Crime in San Francisco article? After it is developed with good references we can discuss what might be missing from the main SF article.--Paul (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
What sources would you propose using and what words would you like to see in the article? HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
These are good points. The assassinations of Milk and Moscone are already mentioned, though not in the context of ongoing crime. 19th and early 20th century SF was pretty crime-ridden, and that is mentioned. Not mentioned: The Vigilance Committee killed many people—489 in the first 10 months of 1856. Tong boss "Little Pete" was assassinated in a Chinatown barbershop in 1897; one of many Chinatown killings. Past mayors and civic leaders were sometimes seen in the street, fighting or dueling. 1907 was a big bribery, corruption and violence year because of major railroad litigation. President Ford was shot at by Sara Jane Moore in 1975. Fog City has been a wild town and still is in some ways. San Francisco has seen the Zebra murders and the Zodiac Killer, the mafia, a Russian crime syndicate, Asian gang violence, black gang violence, hate crimes, etc. Modern crime statistics could be quoted and compared with other cities. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Be careful when comparing crime statistics. Differences in measuring and reporting mean that even the most basic numbers can be deceiving. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I would never try to compare stats myself, I would quote comparisons made by reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
This is an unbalanced article.
This article reads like a tourist brochure put out by the San Francisco Visitors and Convention Bureau.
The complete omission of any negativity or any mention of San Francisco's substancial crime problem is glaring. There is no denying that SF has a crime problem. San Francisco has a higher crime rate than LA, San Diego, San Jose, Seattle, Portland, etc. San Francisco County has the highest crime rate of any county in California. High profile crimes like the death of a German tourist struck by a stray bullet and the death of another German Tourist struck by a hit and run driver 6 days later are sensdational crimes which should be included. The historic crimes of the Zodiac killer, the Zebra killings, the riot in the Mission after the Giants World Series victory should all be included along with the slaying of Harvey Milk and George Moscone. The fact that San Francisco's downtown neighborhoods of the Tenderloin, Mid Market, 6th Street, Civic Center and parts of SOMA experience much violentb crime should be refferenced. In 2008 San Francisco experienced over 20 homicides in its downtown neighborhoods. This is many more that the 2 that neighboring Oakland experienced in its downtown neighborhoods. Also, ther is ne denying that SF has the most crime plagued downtown of any city in the West Coast. SF's downtown crime rste is higher than LA's, San Diego, San Jose, Oakland, Sacramento, Portland and Seatlle. The crime problem in SF is completely glossed over and therefore puts unsuspecting tourists in danger by not accurrately documenting the state of crime in San Francisco in general and in downtown SF in particular. The numerous killings in the Tenderloin and the numerous shooings in downton nighclubs are swept under the rug in order tp preserve San Francisco's toueist image. Meanwhiloe the article for SF's neighbor across the Bay rads like a crime blotter. Wikipedia is a joke used by various entities to promote their causes and while denigrsting their competitors. Shame on you. What you do shoulod be illegal and probable is.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.231.199 (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I smell troll. (See section immediately above.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Infobox montage revisited
I recently replaced the then current image with a montage, but I was reverted and kindly directed to the talk page. At any rate, here is the montage that was reverted, and I'm wondering if there is consensus to have it replace the single image as of present. Personally I am in favor of it, and feel it better portrays the city then the above ones, while being relatively pleasant to the eye. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I do not like montage images in the infobox because each little tile necessarily shows less information than one big one. For some articles this is okay, but for San Francisco I see no benefit. For people who like montages, the first problem is the one about deciding which images are the most representative. For San Francisco, the number of possible representative images is far too great for one montage, so you must pick and choose. The resulting image is one that typically satisfies only one or two editors. Here at this talk page, we've settled upon no montage at all as the best solution, and I do not feel that your new montage is different enough to change the article style. Binksternet (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion. I would just like to point out that this montage has the same picture present in the infobox now and is the focal point of the montage. It also has some things I think are very "San Francisco", i.e. the Transamerica Pyramid and SF museum of art. I would however still appreciate further opinions, so that a new consensus can be reached based on the opinions of more than two users. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Right, the same picture at the top as is now in the infobox alone. With your montage, the already-huge infobox becomes yet taller, intruding farther into the article text. Binksternet (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
This is nothing new to articles about major cities, regardless, I would still appreciate more opinions. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I also earlier weighed in against montages, and though you offer an excellent montage (the best yet), I haven't changed my mind. The recent trend to put montages in all city articles is a fad, and not a good one. First there is the matter of the purpose of an info box. It is supposed to give you quick information, but with a big montage to start (over 2x higher than the pic we are now using) the picture is all you can see on the first screen without scrolling down. Then there is the matter of the pictures themselves. If they are already in the article, what is gained by showing a small hard to make out version of them in the infobox? If they are not already in the article, how does anybody find out what they are? You can't click on it to get a bigger version. About the only plus I can come up to describe these montages is that they are slick and look like the front cover of a tourist guide. And, honestly, I don't really regard that as a plus.--Paul (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Of course. I will drop the matter now. Thank you both for your input. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it snowing yet in San Francisco?
No.
The sentence on snow in the Climate section of the article is based on a reliable source, Golden Gate Weather Services who reports that there have been 10 instances of measurable snow in San Francisco since 1850. The "light dusting of snow on elevated surfaces" reported in the San Francisco Chronicle Bay Area in the clear after snow dusts hills does not quality as snow in the same sense that the 10 occurrences reported by Golden Gate Weather do. The same SF Chronicle article also says "Snow sprinkled Bay Area foothills Saturday morning and crept within a few hundred feet of sea level. But for those dreaming of a white Frisco, dream on," and "The storm sweeping south from Canada brought some record low temperatures, showers and unstable air, a formula that might have produced the first measurable snowfall on downtown San Francisco streets in 35 years." Note "MIGHT HAVE." So the San Francisco Chronicle says it didn't snow in San Francisco.
The New York Times article used as a "reliable source" to change the instances of snow from 10 to 11 in the article also talks about the light no-sticking-around dusting at the top of the hills, but includes this assessment: "Still, for some, the hype turned their feelings to mush even before the storm came and went without leaving any snow. “I’m already over the snow in San Francisco,” wrote Michael Owens, a Twitter user. “And it hasn’t even happened yet.” So, despite the headline and the hype, the New York Times doesn't think it snowed in San Francisco, either.
What happened on Friday was a short, isolated snow flurry in one part of the city that didn't produce any measurable snow amount. You cannot conflate this in the same sentence with the 10 previous instances of real snow in San Francisco that covered the whole city, stuck to the ground and were measurable. If we were to list instances of isolated non-measurable snowfall in the article how would we do it? How many have there been? How many were reported in the papers? How many were not? Near occasions of snow are not notable.
For all of these reasons, I have reverted the addition to the article claiming that there have bee 11 instances of snowfall in San Francisco since 1850. --Paul (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Paul. The balance of the sources is that the recent snow-type event was too small to be listed as significant. The brief mention in NYT does not account for the amount and area coverage of snow used by GGWS as their baseline. Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The snowfall in San Francisco coated the ground briefly, but quickly melted. No snow was observed in downtown San Francisco and AccuWeather.com meteorologist Dave Samuhel said the dusting would not count toward official records that show the last measurable snowfall in the area 35 years ago.
So, instead of acting as a reliable source for the 11th instance of snow since 1852, it is a good source for that fact that Feb 25, 2011 did not count.--Paul (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment regarding stagnating and declining population
There is a nice graph in this section showing the evolution of population size as a function of time; nonetheless, no reference is made to it and no comment is made about the interesting changes in the slope of this graph. Population curves are expected to increase in most cases for generally trivial reasons. Only when the population increases very quickly is there any reason for discussion. Howevever, when a population size stagnates or declines, there is usually an important reason for it. It seems that there must be an interesting and noteworthy reason for the stabilisation of the population between 1930 and 1940 as well as for the decline in population between 1950 and 1980. --Silentrebel (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silentrebel (talk • contribs)
The population decline from 1950 until 1980 was driven by two factors, the outflow of people from cities to the suburbs that occurred all through the U.S.A. during this time coupled with the lack of growth in the area of San Francisco. While most big cities saw an outflow of population to the suburbs in the 1950's and 1960's, many were able to offset the population loss by annexing unincorporated surrounding land. San Francisco is limited by geography and was not able to expand. Thus, the decline in population.--Paul (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant! Now I can look at that graph and understand how San Fransisco's context in American history and geography has influenced part of that graph and, by extension, how it has influenced San Francisco's demography. Do you think that would be worth including in the article? --Silentrebel (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
This is my observation and, as such, is original research which is forbidden in Wikipedia articles.--Paul (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry to waste your time then... I'll keep my eye out for a while and see if I can find any studies on San Francisco demographics that cover this detail, but I doubt I'll have much luck. --Silentrebel (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
hello i would love to edit this because you forgot something in the text please email me when you get the chance gracias
75.69.12.48 (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Please explain your edit request here on the Talk Page.--Paul (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
How to go about addressing the "poo" smell caused by the low-water-usage toilets.
CNN (the Cable News Network) reports at: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/01/low-flow-toilets-cause-stink-in-san-francisco/ (2011) about the smell of human waste in and around the City. This cannot be ignored. Billions in real estate devaluation would result if this problem isn't addressed quickly. Yelp.com also has about 250 posts about the sewer smell (2009).
I want to add a section about "green" SF and this issue. I don't want to get in an arguement with the SF Wikipedia "boosters club", so if you have an objection to this addition, say so now and let us 'hash it out'. I'm open to "some" give & take.Mark Preston (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you tell us more about these "low-water-usage toilets"? Are they the same as we've been successfully using in Australia for a century (largely because we are a country with not much water)? A look at Dual flush toilet may help explain what I mean. (Although they are a more recent development - maybe 40 years ago.) I'm trying to get my head around what the real problem is. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Considering that this is the page frequented by editors of the article in question, calling them a "boosters club" is not a good way to win them over to a proposed content addition that you seem to think is going to be controversial. Better to assume editors are operating in good faith to create an appropriate article. So, poo to you too. My take on this is that there is indeed an occasional smell of poo about the city that lasts a few days at a time, most prominent along the waterfront, and that this has been blamed variously on poor antiquated sewage systems and also on bacterial blooms in the bay itself. Although CNN is a reliable source and it cites a city study, there are other sources that show that the smell is neither recent nor a result of low flow toilets. Further, as SF is not the only city in the world pushing low flow toilets, if this is indeed a real issue it is not particularly unique to SF, and therefore better covered in articles about toilets than articles about specific cities. Finally, as this is a general article about San Francisco - the people, politics, history, economy, etc., it is very unlikely that this one municipal problem rises to the level of being something every reader should know about the city, above all the other city problems like crime, road repair, tax burden, traffic jams, pedestrian safety, school lunch programs, panhandlers, unfriendly parking attendants, tree viruses, wild beasts, etc. Is there any source to suggest that the poo smell will cause billions of dollars in losses before it's solved? - Wikidemon (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, you forgot to mention earthquakes in that list of alleged problems! Surely they can cause poo smells too, from broken sewers, etc? Sometimes they even cause slightly more serious problems. (PS: Only been to San Fancisco once, but I loved it.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
CNN is just repeating what was written in the Chronicle. The Chronicle is just reporting what the PUC official told them.[1] But the Chronicle item is just part of a compendium article covering various city topics. It certainly is prominent enough an issue to include in this article. Will Bebacktalk 00:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
But again, exactly what IS the issue? The toilets? The city administration? Just the smell? Political point-scoring? HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Like most cities, San Francisco has a newspaper that prints a daily compendium of city issues, most of which are of little WP:WEIGHT or interest to anyone outside the city. The press often has a "gee what did those crazy people in San Francisco do" article template, just as it has a "gee what just got sold on eBay" template and in days past a "gee what did teenagers influenced by satanic rock and roll music just do" template. As an issue, this one (if real - as I said the sources appear to contradict) is basically news of the day material over something that may or may not be a problem and may or may not be solved by pouring some bleach on it. If we covered every issue at that level this article would be voluminous and aimless. The point of the article is to inform an interested reader of the things they ought to know. Exactly why would someone need to know that there is an occasional poo smell in town and that according to one city study but not other sources it is due to low flow toilets? Even if it is truly due to low flow toilets then it seems to be a low flow toilet issue, not a city issue. Contrast that with our article on Cowschwitz, where a geographic location is defined by its smell. Frankly, I would attribute the currency of this issue to the "sometimes environmental initiatives are misguided" point of view and not an encyclopedic understanding of San Francisco as a city. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Considering the humble source and the unlikelihood of further news on the subject, I believe this bit does not belong per WP:NOTNEWS. Not significant enough for this very general article hitting only the most important points about the city. Binksternet (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses.
Along with the CNN news story is a page from the social review/networking site Yelp.com. There a "group" of commenters discuss the smell problem. The link is:
This discussion on Yelp is from 2009. That suggests that the problem hasn't been correctly identified for about 2 years. That seems (if unfortunate), a significant period of time in which the City Fathers did zip to remediate or even understand the problem.
To the Australian gent: your point is lost on me. San Francisco isn't in Australia. The US gov't. shut down the National Plumbing administration office in the early 80s. I talked with the former head of that office and learned that "no studies" were performed about substituting toilets that use less water with those currently in use. He said: "the big money interests" won-the-day. That is in reference to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers standard for (what they call) Personal Water Closets.
For Mr. Wikidemon: I used the word "boosters" as those editors of the Wiki San Francisco ought to be considered biased. I know this is a tough choice of words, but given the potential severity of this problem, San Franciscans editing the Wiki SF page are going to have a harder time being objective.
I have read far more webpages than merely CNN and Yelp about the smell problem. This, appears to me, to be fairly serious. The SF County Council has purchased $3 million extra ($14 million total) in bleach to cleanse the air. This sooooooo goes against the environmental slant that these water saving devices are about that it almost shouts for some attention.
I'm willing to hash this out some more, but I'm unconvinced that this isn't a worthy inclusion in the Wiki SF page, as of yet. But, folks, take your best shot. I'm waiting.69.108.116.144 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
As the Australian "gent": YOUR point is lost on me. Why cannot a non-American have opinions and knowledge relevant to this matter? Wikipedia is global, not American. Your seeming arrogance and desire to ignore others' relevant knowledge and views concerns me. HiLo48 (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear HiLo: I value your opinion, but it doesn't help to understand the best way to discuss the smell in SF. If you can comment or opine on that, I'ld be able to understand what you are saying. That the Aussies use a different plumbing system is great. But it's not relevant to the PROBLEM in SF. At least, that's my opinion. - Your turn.Mark Preston (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Another classic example of US-centrism and arrogance on Wikipedia. You have totally ignored my first post in this thread. (Any chance you could actually try to answer the questions?) And you have been the ugly American telling one of those alien foreigners that he knows nothing. Your countrymen will thank you for messing with your nation's image yet again. HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear HiLo: I can only guess that you are referring to your questions, op.cit.: "Can you tell us more about these "low-water-usage toilets"? Are they the same as we've been successfully using in Australia for a century (largely because we are a country with not much water)? A look at Dual flush toilet may help explain what I mean. (Although they are a more recent development - maybe 40 years ago.) I'm trying to get my head around what the real problem is. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)"
As for your "Are they the same as we've been successfully using in Australia for a century ... ?" I ask you to send me, here at this discussion, the Australian standard for these "personal water closets". Which American Society of Mechanical Engineers standard can be referenced, here:
and lastly, please understand that I'm trying to discuss WHETHER to include this (I'm trying to find a consenus) and if a pro-article consensus forms, then the best way to address this. You have me working backwards from what I term: absolute inclusion to relative inclusion. From the purpose of the technology, and not a "debate" over the usefulness of this to the SF wiki page. Thanks. Mark Preston (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, maybe the term "boosters" isn't accurate, but it is highly unlikely that San Franciscans will want their homes describes as "poo smelling". Lots of tourists read the SF wiki and could be another potential loss of revenue to the City. San Francisco is one of my favorite cities in the world and I gave some thought to coming to Wiki about this yet, eventually came to believe it's a timely addition and when (or if) the stink problem is resolved, the article can (and should) reflect that, as soon as humanely possible. Lastly, for WikiDemon, again, as to your assertion about Weight, it would seem to me that the entry about Cycling should have as much weight as an entry about (again, sadly) foul odors around SF. I await a reply. Mark Preston (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I've had the "flu" for the past week and not able to "talk" here. Mark Preston69.108.116.144 (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Most Walkable City
San Francisco was recognized as the most walkable city in the nation. CNBC reported this title in April 2011. [6]Laurenrose3091 (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Why was the well referenced crime per square mile information for San Francisco deleted?
On what basis do you delete this well sourced information regarding San Francisco crime figures as they relate to the rest of the United States? It's appropriate to mention crime regarding the density which is mentioned in the first paragraph. Again, why was well referenced important material deleted? Why is there virtually no mention of San Francisco's high crime rate in the entire article. San Francisco is more dangerous than 91% of American cities according to the reference source. Why is this information deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.215.121 (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
How does density of crime translate into safety? Naturally, being the second-densest major city in the United States means higher density of crime than most cities, so the metric doesn't mean anything. Also, it compares apples and oranges, since it compares a city to a country. This is on top of the info not being sourced and Wikipedia not being a travel guide. --Kurykh (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
You bring up density so density of crime should be included. And the fact that San Francisco has 883 crimes per Square mile means that safety is a concern. This means that in San Francisco, regardless of neighborhood, you're closer to crime than in any other city in the United States. The killing of a German tourist near Union Square is indisputable proof that crime density effects safety.
The information you deleted was sourced from a San Francisco neighborhood crime comparison blog. You also took out sourced information regarding San Francisco's high crime downtown neighborhoods of the Tenderloin, Mid market, 6th Street, SOMA, and Civic Center. Your refusal to add any crime reference in the San Francisco article makes this article completely unbalanced and turns it into a rosy sun splashed travel guide.98.210.215.121 (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Crime rates are generally reported on a per capita basis, not a per square mile basis, because you can't have crimes without people. The national 'per square mile' statistic would necessarily include uninhabited areas like ANWR, possibly desert atolls in the Pacific, etc. The article notes SF's crime rate in comparison to cities of similar size, but you might want to add WP:RS comparing SF to other tourist destinations (e.g. LA, NYC, DC, and Chicago), only beware of cherry-picking statistics. Also, SF being a city of neighborhoods, crime is very localized;[2] shootings are very rare except between rival gangs, so you might want to find a WP:RS addressing gang activity. The isolated incident in Union Square was a stray bullet from a gang conflict, like getting struck by lightning or run over by a car, one moment of tragically bad luck. Crime is indeed a concern in many places, but 'crimes per square mile' doesn't really provide a helpful comparison between a densely populated city and a vast country.TVC 15 (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Crime in San Francisco, hardly isolated incidents. I understand you want to protect San Francisco's tourist image,but hiding the crime won't clean up the house. San Francisco has a higher crime rate than Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, Portland, Seattle, New York, Boston, etc. San Francisco has a very serious crime problem which is not mentioned in this article at all. The frequent nighclub shooting in SOMA, the muggings, shootings, and stabbings in the Tenderloin, Mid Market, SOMA, 6th Street and Civic Center don't exist according to this sunny travel guide. The shooting of the German tourist was no more isolated than the stabbing of an 11 year old boy on MUNI or the beating death of an 84 year old Asian gentleman as he was waiting near a MUNI platform. According to the San Francisco Examiner, a man was pisol whipped in front of SF CIty Hall,along with three home invasion robberies and a huge increase in robberies in the Mission. This article makes San Francisco sound like Mayberry. Your total dismissal of the serious
crime problems in San Francisco in order to protect San Francisco's tourist image is rather appauling and shocking. Please do not remove properly sourced crime information. It's not fair to San Francisco residents, tourists, or other cities on Wikipedia which present a balanced, honest and fair article regarding their respective cities.98.210.215.121 (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. (WP:GOODFAITH ) Accusing people of willful manipulation to attract tourism without evidence of such motives is not considered civil, here or pretty much anyway. A SF crime blog is not considered a reliable source, nor is a list of various violent crimes without context, such as above. 64.180.40.100 (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:AGF and learn to use spell check. I was trying to help you but will stop now, seeing as you have a history of WP:Vandalism.[3]TVC 15 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
^"Under Three Flags"(PDF). Golden Gate National Recreation Area Brochures. US Department of the Interior. 2004. Retrieved June 13, 2008. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^Wiley, Peter Booth (2000). National trust guide- San Francisco: America’s guide for architecture and history travelers. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 44–55. ISBN9780471191209. OCLC44313415.
^"Under Three Flags"(PDF). Golden Gate National Recreation Area Brochures. US Department of the Interior. 2004. Retrieved June 13, 2008. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
^Wiley, Peter Booth (2000). National trust guide- San Francisco: America’s guide for architecture and history travelers. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 44–55. ISBN9780471191209. OCLC44313415.
Done Yeah, there's an app for that, heh. Good looking out for the dead link. Read all about dead links at WP:LINKROT. --Lexein (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Done - removed unsourced advertising WP:ADV claim about a single school of unestablished notability WP:NOTE. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list or a catalog WP:NOTCATALOG. Reliably sourced statistics about private schools would be welcomed. Discuss. This includes you, Eric. WP:Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. --Lexein (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
