Talk:Noe Valley public toilet

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Donchey, Sara (October 19, 2022). "Public toilet in San Francisco's Noe Valley comes with painful $1.7M price tag". CBS News. San Francisco.
Knight, Heather (October 19, 2022). "S.F. is spending $1.7 million on one public toilet: 'What are they making it out of — gold?'". San Francisco Chronicle. Why San Francisco is spending $1.7 million on one public toilet
"San Francisco is Spending $1.7M on a Public Toilet". NBC Bay Area. October 19, 2022.
Melendez, Lyanne (October 19, 2022). "San Francisco is in need of public restrooms, but is $1.7 million too much for a 150-square-foot facility in Noe Valley?". ABC7 News (ABC7 San Francisco). San Francisco. KGO.
Mills, Ryan (October 19, 2022). "Flushing Money: San Francisco to Spend $1.7 Million to Build a Single Public Toilet". National Review.
Pino, Dominic (October 19, 2022). "San Francisco Is Building a Toilet". National Review.
Best, Paul (October 19, 2022). "San Francisco building single public toilet that will cost $1.7 million and won't be completed until 2025". Fox News.
Gaines, Tori (October 20, 2022). "Celebration for SF public toilet canceled amid backlash over $1.7M price tag". KRON4. San Francisco. KRON.
"Feces-plagued US city to spend $1.7 million on one public toilet". RT World News. RT International. October 19, 2022.
Solis, Nathan (October 20, 2022). "San Francisco plans to spend 2 years, $1.7 million to build single-toilet public restroom". Los Angeles Times.
Richards, Tori (October 20, 2022). "Money down the tubes: San Francisco to spend $1.7 million on one public restroom". Restoring America. Washington Examiner.
Southern, Keiran (October 20, 2022). "San Francisco is building a $1.7m loo where you can spend a penny ... in 2025". The Times. Los Angeles.
Gaines, Tori (October 20, 2022). "Is San Francisco really paying $1.7 million for a public restroom?". KTLA.
Frauenfelder, Mark (October 20, 2022). "San Francisco is spending $1.7 million to build a single public toilet". Boing Boing.
Pesce, Nicole Lyn (October 21, 2022). "San Francisco spending $1.7 million on a single public toilet: 'The cost is insane'". MarketWatch.
Mollman, Steve (October 22, 2022). "A public toilet 'should not cost $1.7 million.' Why California's governor is wading into a San Francisco neighborhood's 'inexplicable' plan". Fortune. Gavin Newsom puts brakes on $1.7M public toilet in San Francisco
Knight, Heather (October 22, 2022). "S.F.'s Toiletgate: Newsom calls $1.7 million bathroom a waste, halts state money until costs come down". San Francisco Chronicle.
Ionescu, Diana (October 24, 2022). "Uproar Over San Francisco's $1.7 Million Toilet". Planetizen.
Barmann, Jay (October 24, 2022). "Governor's Office Wades Into Noe Valley Toilet Controversy, Says Funds Will Be Withheld". SFist.
Millsap, Adam A. (October 25, 2022). "California's $1.7 Million Toilet Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things". Forbes.
Cantor, Matthew (October 25, 2022). "Loo-dicrous: San Franciscans flushed with anger over $1.7m public toilet". The Guardian. San Francisco.
Eskenazi, Joe (October 26, 2022). "Class for your ass: Haney wants probe, audit of $1.7M SF restroom". Mission Local.
Camp, Emma (October 26, 2022). "San Francisco Wants To Spend $1.7 Million on a Single Public Toilet". Reason Magazine. San Francisco Budgets $1.7 Million for a Single Public Toilet
Grabar, Henry (October 28, 2022). "A Crappy Process in San Francisco". Slate Magazine. San Francisco's $1.7 million toilet: How Civic Design Reviews make even simple public design take forever. […] The No. 1 and No. 2 Reasons That San Francisco's $1.7 Million Toilet Is a Scandal
Knight, Heather (November 29, 2022). "S.F. Toiletgate: City supervisor demands answers on 'really outrageous' $1.7 million public bathroom". San Francisco Chronicle.

On 5 March 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

California 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.

United States: 50,000 Challenge Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!

Sanitation Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation 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.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 5 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus at this time; editors supporting consider the title more recognizable, editors opposing consider it less precise and less descriptive. The article may also be taken to AfD at any time, in line with comments by [[User:CityUrbanism|]] and [[User:Festucalex|]]. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noe Valley public toilet → ? – "Noe Valley public toilet" has almost no use in sources. Don't know what it should be moved to as most sources seem to refer to it with some variation of "1.7 million dollar toilet" but I'm not sure how suitable that is. BhamBoi (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC) BhamBoi (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, unless someone thinks of something better, or reliable sources have a better description than a generic "$1.7 million toilet", this seems like a good WP:PRECISE, WP:NDESC compromise. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But there is WP:COMMONNAME: "noe valley public toilet" is not really used in sources. See the source list above and in the article, and you'll notice they mostly refer to it with some variation of the pricetag. But I don't care too strongly on this RM. BhamBoi (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, think about what name someone would want to look for more information about this on after seeing it on the news. It'd be the name commonly associated with it. Probably not this BhamBoi (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support "1.7 million dollar public toilet" or something similar on recognizability grounds. The toilet is mainly notable for its specific price tag of $1.7 million, and a more recognizable title should get that across. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure but I have created the redir from 1.7 million dollar public toilet as I think it is a more likely search term. Which should be the article name I can argue both ways, but we should have a redir from the other IMO. Andrewa (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, current title is descriptive and there does not appear to be an established common name. Dekimasuよ! 07:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisting to see if we can get more participation to discuss possible new name. echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate to WP:AfD. I genuinely can't see why a 3x5 meter non-existent toilet is notable. The $1.7m factoid can go in the San Francisco Recreation & Parks Department article. 〜Festucalex • talk • contribs 08:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support "1.7 million dollar public restroom" per recognizability, descriptive titles, and ENGVAR (we don't call these "public toilets" in American English). Red Slash 21:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The sources at the top of this page use a mix of "public bathroom" and "public toilet". Some using the term "toilet" are U.S. based, including the first three, CBS News, NBC and San Francisco Chronicle. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, in my PNW dialect, I would default to public bathroom BhamBoi (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that would be a full-fledged bathroom, if it's just basically a stall I think I'd go with toilet. BhamBoi (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate to WP:AfD per User:Festucalex – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 21:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Updates

I don't know if this subject merits its own article, but I did some updates. The original $1.7 million project will not be happening, and a cheaper option has been approved. EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]