Talk:List of companies based in San Francisco

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Must we all have to put every company that exists in SF?

I think we should only put the major ones, like Companies in fortune 500 or 1000 or something like that. Otherwise the list will just expand as long as it can. Do we also need companies that "used" to be on SF? 21 September 2006. 68.164.186.81

I think it's important to include all the companies headquartered. Just because some might not be F 500 doesn't necessarily mean they don't contribute equally to the larger culture or to the city in which they reside. The page, linked from the SF article, has a lot of room to expand, and in giving a picture or San Francisco, the more information (companies) the better. In regards to the "used to" section, I think they give more detail on SF's past, and specific information about the companies that are either defunct, acquired, or relocated. It's more information; interesting information. Hey, some cities don't even have 5 companies based there. San Francisco is dynamic, and this should help illustrate that.7 January 2007 66.234.39.20

Companies that are noteworthy enough to be listed on wikipedia probably should be listed even though nowhere near the F500, especially if they illuminate the culture of the area. For example, there are few places in the United States where Good Vibrations could have set up shop and thrived. As for companies that "used to" be in the area, it would be useful if the listing mentioned where they relocated to. I suspect some went to the suburbs, others far out of state -- are trends visible? MrRedwood 20:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - blue links is good criteria. II | (t - c) 20:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be 3 broad buckets of companies. 1) those large companies with >100 people with a SF office [though HQ may be elsewhere], 2) those that are noteworthy for many reasons, 3) those are headquartered in SF and are part of the F2000. There may be some overlap between these 3. (Morkman 2013.06.09) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.72 (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Why are companies in or nearer to Oakland and San Jose included? The entire Bay Area is not focused around San Francisco, despite what residents there might think. krudmonk 16:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.120.19 (talk) [reply]

I agree. I am quite tired of articles referring to bay area CITIES as SUBURBS of frisco (hah! and i was born in frisco! double ha ha!). The only dividing lines we can use and not show POV are city, county boundaries, or the San Francisco Bay Area 9 county region. "near" or "outlying" doesnt cut it. I have moved the section for the other counties to list of companies based in the San Francisco Bay Area, though that list now needs to have this lists contents integrated into it. and whats with these bizarre section headings? keep it simple, i say, and use business types that the average reader will understand (or explain them with links)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]