Talk:San Francisco

Alpha/world city

The Chicago article prominently states this. Perhaps SF should too. see world city .:davumaya:. 15:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco is a BETA World City. It is already in the article. Personally, I'd remove this from the article. It's just boosterism and doesn't really tell you anything useful about San Francisco. It's like that press releases from NGO's that are on NPR "news" programs all of the time. --Paul (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thats what that ranking means. It is a bit of a silly ranking though the definitions are still being formed in scholar fields on globalization. It may take credence one day. .:davumaya:. 19:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sister cities

Where are the sister cities? I've also noticed that in some other cities articles, such as Shanghai, there are no sister cities listed there as well. Why is that? Lady Galaxy 03:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

They were moved to a subarticle when this article was polished for FA status. —Kurykh 03:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• The Sister Cities link is available in the "City and County of San Francisco" box at the bottom of the article.

Subarticle titles

As I was going through the article, I noticed the subarticles have not yet decided on a single naming scheme. Some have "San Francisco, California" at the end (e.g., History of San Francisco, California), while others have only "San Francisco" (e.g., Culture of San Francisco). At the risk of opening a can of worms, I think we should decide on one naming scheme and stick to it, whichever it turns out to be. Naturally, this naming scheme excludes articles like San Francisco Municipal Railway, San Francisco International Airport, etc. —kurykh 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I know the US uses "city, state" conventions and this argument has been overdone, but I still don't see why San Francisco can't be just at San Francisco. According to the consensus it's "City, State" unless it's one of the cities that can be written as just "City" according to the AP Stylebook, of which San Francisco is one of them. According to my (non-American) view, the San Francisco in California is literally the only San Francisco I have ever heard of. --Joowwww (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I understand that the most commonly known San Francisco is located in California, there are several other major cities named San Francisco elsewhere in the world. One is located in the Philippines, and then there are several located in various Latin American and South American countries, like, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, etc. Toropop (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Photo of a Muni bus with Tagalog ad

A San Francisco Muni bus with ad in Tagalog

I added this photo to the demographics section, as it demonstrates visually the city's Asian population and the fact that many people were born outside the U.S. (both of which are mentioned many times in the section and the article.) User:Paul.h removed it twice saying it wasn't applicable. I think it's useful and interesting. Anybody else? --AW (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The photo is notable and appropriate because of the city's large Filipino population.--Loodog (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you got a picture of the full bus, we could be able to use it on more articles :) BoL (Talk) 03:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good photo at all. Using an ad on a bus to show SF's Asian population, you're kidding right! :) If you want to demonstrates visually about the city's Asian population, using a picture of Chinatown is even better.—Chris! _ct 04:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel the image should be added. One of the issues raised at the recent FAR was that the use of images was somewhat excessive, and the total size and number of them was reduced, so the usage of images needs to kept in check and any additions of images may need to be balanced with removing some. Also the picture doesn't quickly convey information related to the text in an accurate manner. One Tagalog bus ad doesn't really convey much, especially considered Filipino people only only account for 15% of the total Asian population and around 5% of the total city population compared to 64% and 20% for Chinese. The image wouldn't add to a readers understanding, it is somewhat difficult to read, would add to an already full set of images, and gives undue weight to a population.

If anything the population growth could be swapped for another chart representing distribution of race, languages spoken at home, or population of foreign born residents. I've thrown together two quick examples at (Image:San Francisco, CA - Languages spoken at home 2006.gif and Image:San Francisco, CA - Race w Asian subdivision (2006).gif) Also, the page Demographic maps of San Francisco, California is a collection of images. If you really want to give a more in depth profile of the diversity of San Francisco you could expand on the information presented in that article, and/or move the images into a gallery page at commons. Another you could look at is Daly City, California, where Filipinos are the largest group with 36% of the population compared to 27% for Whites and 23% for Latinos. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Optigan13, for all the reasons stated. Signs and billboards in languages other than English are quite common these days, and not just in San Francisco. --Sfmammamia (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Most of what I was going to say has been expertly covered by Optigan13 (talk). I agree with the points made above, especially about undue weight, and the obscure linkage between the photo and the point it supposed to be illustrating. The text doesn't mention a Filipino population nor any of the languages spoken in the city. My only additional point is that I don't see any compelling argument to change the population growth graph out for anything else, as that would mean adding a population growth table unnecessarily expanding the article.--Paul (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox montage

Is there a reason the montage picture was taken down? Taifarious1 10:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Some editor preferred the view from the Marin Headlands. I'm agnostic on the issue, I think both pictures are good. One, however, might be called "iconic"--Paul (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I could take it or leave it with the two pictures as well. I don't think it helps that you called it Frisco in the image name (See San Francisco, California#cite note-1), so I've requested a rename on commons. -Optigan13 (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

There is currently a proposal on the table to amend the Wikipedia naming conventions for US cities to follow the AP Stylebook's suggested names. This would effectively move a number of US city articles currently on the list, so San Francisco, California would be moved to San Francisco. To comment on this discussion, please go here. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Bike Lanes

In "Sports", it says there are more than 200 miles of bike lanes in the city. In "Roads and Highways", it says there are 68 miles of bike lanes in the city. The reference used is identical, although listed as separate footnotes. The reference claims more than 200 miles of bicycle routes of various style, but could perhaps be interpreted to mean only 68 miles that are bicycle-exclusive. In any case, can we come to consensus about what the correct number of bike routes is, and then come to consensus as to whether that information should be in "Sports" or in "Roads and Highways" as it clearly does not need to appear in both.--67.101.43.251 (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's not confuse "bike lanes" (Class 2) with "bike routes" (class 3) both of which are different types of "bikeways" (using CA nomenclature). The third type of bikeway is the bike path (Class 1). So we just need to be clear whether we're talking about miles of Class 1, 2 or 3 bikeways, or all combined. See Segregated cycle facilities for (much) more information. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, an article about San Francisco is not the place to define these terms. Let's pick a number that reflects bike facilities in San Francisco, and only cite it once. My preference: use the 200 miles term and leave it in "Sports" and drop it from "Roads and highways".--67.101.44.240 (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is not the place to define those terms, true, but it is a place to use them properly. So, it's 200 miles of what, exactly? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The reference describes it as a "Bicycle network" and futher lists 4 classes of bike routes. Let's say there is a 200-mile bicycle network, or let's say there are 200 miles of bike routes. Which do you prefer?--67.101.44.240 (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that the source distinguishes Class III bikeways (bike routes) with wide curb lanes from those without. That's good. Anyway, the current statement is false about 200 miles of bike lanes - the reference itself clearly states that there are 45 miles of bike lanes. And stating 200 miles of bike route would be misleading if not false too, as only 79 miles of the network are designated as Class III bike routes (with or without WCL).

What I suggest changing is this:

There are more than 200 miles (320 km) of bicycle lanes in the city ...

to this:

There are more than 200 miles (320 km) of bicycle paths, lanes and bike routes in the city ...

I would not use the word "network" because that's misleading - it's not like these paths, bike lanes and bike routes are all connected in one continuous network.

I think it's appropriate to mention bikeways in the "Sports" section rather than Transportation because all roads in San Francisco, except the freeways, are available for bicycle transportation (now, there's a viable network). It's recreational cyclists that mostly seek these types of facilities.

However, a separate Bicycling sub-section under Transportation noting this fact about all SF roads being available to bicyclists, making vehicular cycling a viable transportation option there, might be worth mentioning as well. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going ahead with the first change above; the correction in the Sports section. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Population

An editor has recently removed the population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau and replaced them with estimates from the State of California. State of California numbers are always biased high so they can get more funds from the national government. This article has always used Census Bureau numbers for consistency with other articles and because they are more stable.

I think the article should continue to use only U.S. Census population numbers. If the State numbers came out in January 2009 and the last Census Bureau numbers are for 2007 or 2008 so be it. They'll get around to updating the estimates.

Are there other opinions?--Paul (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Transportation infrastructure - change hesitation

I was about to make some changes to the transportation section of this article, however stopped upon noting its "Feature Article" status. What I'm looking at is the same format that all other CA county articles follow, with route graphics included. Now again, I don't want to detract from an already great article, about a great city. (I find myself up there in SF at least three to five times a year, solely for recreation and just to take in the clean air and cityscape!) I'd appreciate some input on this one. Edit Centric (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What information would a list of routes (along the lines of those found in other County article) add that the current section does not capture? Does adding the logo of any particular route add to the understanding of San Francisco? This article summarizes all the major routes traversing the city, and does so in prose form. That is far preferable to a list.--ABIJXY (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see where the prose form of this is preferable, and agree somewhat! How about doing it the way it's been done at Sonoma County's transportation section? I rather like the fact that it still shows the route shields (aiding in mnemonics for the driver / reader), and describes in prose the way these routes traverse the county. Please keep in mind that not only is SFO a city, its also its own county as well. As to your question if route shields add to the understanding of SF, I would have to say yes, from the perspective of someone who loves to drive up there four times a year, and wants to know which routes enter the peninsula from which direction, again from a mnemonics angle. (You can't knock mnemonics, why do you think Windows and OS-X are so popular? Icons have become engrained in our day-to-day!)

Granted that the flow of prose in this article is fantastic, just like the city its self. Its just an idea, and I greatly appreciate the dialogue on this one, as it also serves to advance my editing skills and considerations. Edit Centric (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would think including things like route shields would be more appropriate at Transportation in the San Francisco Bay Area than here. This article attained feature status in part, I think, because it has shied away from lists and trivia.--ABIJXY (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Politics

How strange that even though the article mentions politics in the lead, a section or part of a section on politics doesn't exist, instead only having a link to a subarticle. Should we expand the government section into the "government and politics" section and add at least some information on politics? —kurykh 05:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of sentences about politics in the section on culture and contemporary life. I think what's there is adequate to the topic. The article is already plenty long as it is. --Sfmammamia (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Population Density ranking

This page has had issues regarding the statement that it is "second most densely" populated city before. Qualification of the statement with "of cities over 500,000 population" in the main text (indeed, in the lead paragraph), while correct, is weasely and appears designed specifically for the purpose of being able to make the statement. THe original wording, that SF is "one of" the most densely populated major cities is an appropriate compromise, keeping the notability of the city's population density without giving a specific ranking subject to interpretation is, in my view, the best solution, and I seek others' input on this question.

Some past edits on this issue are listed below: [1] [2]

I revert, once again, to language prior to recent edits by 76.192.161.86 subject to discussion by all editors and some engagement by this author. --ABIJXY (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The initial GA version of this article had the claim that SF is the 2nd-most dense large city in the US. It really is. If you look at the other "cities" that rank above SF in population per square mile they are all either part of the NYC or Boston megalopolis and/or are quite small (less than 10 square miles or population less than 100K). You do have to define what a large city is, but SF clearly is the 2nd most dense large city in the U.S., and the density is an important part of San Francisco's character.--Paul (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that its density is an important attribute and should clearly be mentioned. THe problem is that claiming that SF is "2nd most densely populated large city" necessitates defining what "large city" or "major city" is and qualifying the statement with "among cities with greater than 500,000 population" is weasely and sounds specifically selected solely for the purpose of excluding those small cities that are in the reference which are more densely populated than San Francisco - e.g. Somerville MA, Union City NJ, Huntington Park CA. It's also distracting as this article should be about San Francisco, and not about defining what a "major American city" is. I'm happy to change to language to "second most densely populated American city" but move the "of cities greater than X" to a footnote (so as not to be defining "major" or "large city" in the lead introductory text of the article). I also see that this language has come and gone several times over the life of this article, so discussing it here could possibly put this to bed for a long time.--ABIJXY (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As an added observation, I note that New York City says it is the "most densely populated American city" with any qualification included not in the main text but listed as a footnote. This might be the best option for this article as well.--ABIJXY (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the previous sentence: San Francisco is the second most densely populated major city in the U.S.--Paul (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll add it along those lines and maybe include the smaller cities in the note.--ABIJXY (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Portola expedition

The way the history section opens, it implies that Portola himself entered the territory of modern-day San Francisco. While it's true he "found" San Francisco Bay, I'm not certain that either he or members of his expedition actually made it to what we now know as San Francisco. Does anyone else have any information or reference that can help clear this up?--ABIJXY (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any way to clear it up. Nor do I think it is necessary. At the time of Portola, there was no such thing as San Francisco. Portola probably got near what is now San Mateo and saw the bay, and certainly that is enough. His expedition is recognized as having been the first to see the San Francisco Bay area. Why should we doubt this?--Paul (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh I tend to agree with you - Portola's discovery of the Bay was critical. I recently edited (and expanded) that section of the History section. Before I started, it said "The Yelamu group of the Ohlone people resided in several small villages when a Spanish exploration party led by Don Gaspar de Portolá arrived on November 2 1769, the first documented European visit to San Francisco Bay.". I think that wording was a bit inaccurate, as it implies he arrived in SF and interacted with the Yelamu in their villages. I think how I recently reworked it makes it a bit more accurate.--ABIJXY (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Religion

I'm thinking of composing a small section on "Religion" under the section "Culture and contemporary life". There is almost no discussion of this in the article so far. This section would discuss notable religious organizations based in SF (Catholice and Episcopalian Archdioceses of San Francisco; Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia), mention some notable churches and congregations (Grace Cathedral, Glide Memorial Church, Temple Emanu-El), and give some statistics on numbers of congregations and adherents (and non-adherents) from the only source I've found (http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/counties/06075_2000.asp).

I've looked around, and few city articles appear to contain any information about religious observance in the city. It's probably a minefield to actually compose, but was wondering what other opinions were. To balance space, some stuff from Sports could possibly be trimmed.--ABIJXY (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Space isn't an issue. Whether the section is appropriate at all is. —kurykh 20:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say just leave a sentence or two in the culture and contemporary life section rather than create an entirely new subsection; in the whole scheme of things it's not terribly important. —kurykh 20:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think such a section is either needed or appropriate. San Francisco is not like Rome, religion is not an integral part of the city's character. Plus, it's like politics, if you start talking about one religion, where do you stop? There are no good reasons for such a section, but there are loads of pitfalls.--Paul (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this would be a minefield, although it would be nice if things like Grace Cathedral and Glide Memorial Church could be worked in somehow; neither are mentioned as yet. I think I'll just add some of the data from the link above to the Demographics section and leave it at that.--ABIJXY (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Earthquake photo

Would there be any objections to changing out the picutre that's being used to illustrate the 1906 Earthquake? The one currently being used doesn't really have any recognizable features other than a lot of smoke. There's a couple at the page on the Earthquake that maybe have more encyclopedic value:

t

I like the top one myself, since it captures the earthquake's destruction, the fire, SF architecture, cable cars, SF high society all in one image.

Thoughts? --ABIJXY (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Genthe picture was originally in the article but was replaced during the GA editing process with the current photo which I think is a perfect match with the Jack London quote. The London quote talks about an apocalypse, the picture in the article shows great overall destruction and is an excellent match with the quote. I don't see that things would be improved by changing either the picture or the quote.--Paul (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The quote's fine, but the current picture doesn't really say "San Francisco".--ABIJXY (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

After further review, I checked to see the version of this page when it was a GA nominee. It didn't have any earthquake photo in it. link During its first failed FA nomination, the current, sepia-toned photo was already there, without the Jack London quote. link I didn't find any version of this page with the Genthe picture in it.--ABIJXY (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the 936 × 221 pixel image better than either of these two. If one iconic, recognizable image is needed, how about something like City Hall burning, or fire fighting near Lotta's Fountain? Binksternet (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Potential minor changes

As part of a usability test conducted by the Wikimedia Foundation, users might be asked to make and save small changes to the San Francisco entry. These changes will not be harmful and will be undone immediately following the test.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.56.124 (talk) 16:56, March 23, 2009

If you're from Wikimedia Foundation, why didn't you sign this notice? Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Because not all staff members are yet fully adept at remembering to sign (or even logging in, it seems!). Remember to assume good faith (and take a look at recent history); and trust me, it was the Foundation. Cary Bass (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Okeley-dokeley. After so much vandalism reversion, I've gone far afield from assuming good faith. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Murder Rate

San Francisco's murder total for 2007 was 100, according to the FBI. I have edited this into the demographics section of the page numerous times, where SF's crime rate is listed, yet it keeps getting deleted for some reason. Here's the link: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_08_ca.html

Scroll down to San Francisco, and see what it says: 100 homicides. I request that whoever keeps deleting this statistic, would please stop, as there's no reason to do so, unless one wishes to mislead people about SF's murder rate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.186.68 (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop accusing people of deliberate obfuscation, and maybe you'll get somewhere constructive. The reason why it is removed is that is is not terribly important relative to the rest of the article. The most recent number will suffice. What makes 2007 so special that 2006 is not? Or 2005? Or 2004? Merely because of some arbitrarily decided "12 year high"? —kurykh 16:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

We are all in agreement that the number of homicides is notable enough that it should be included in this article. As such, this article includes the number of homicides (NOT the murder rate) in San Francisco in the most recent year for which data is available, 2008. Thank you for providing an updated reference that corrects 2008's total to 99 from 98. I fail to see what inclusion of 2007 data adds to this article. I would encourage you to spend your efforts on a new daughter article called "Crime in San Francisco" if giving year-by-year statistics is important to you.--ABIJXY (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Climate

The climate averages give summer temperatures that are too high for the city. The link of where the data comes from [52] has different numbers than the displayed numbers come from. I tried to fix it but there doesn't seem to be a way to edit it.

I have fixed this once before. Thanks for pointing it out, I've fixed it again. You can edit the weather infobox by editing the template: template:San Francisco weatherbox.--Paul (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)