This is an archive of past discussions about San Francisco. 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.
I'm have to create an montage for San Francisco infobox page now.
Because Detroit, NY, Chicago and others pages have montage in infobox page.
Would have must edit San Francisco page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roif456 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia and noticed how every major city has a collage, so I made one for my city, San Francisco. Someone tried to remove it and I put it back, but reading here there seems to have been a dispute about it. What exactly is wrong with it?
This is what I made. I think it gives quick insight into a lot of the things San Francisco is known for and captures the "vibe" of San Francisco pretty well. The MUNI Cable cars, the GG Bridge, our beautiful skyline, the Giants, Dolores Park, the 49ers, City Hall, and the painted ladies. All very iconic San Franciscan things. Please someone fill me in on this anti-collage consensus and why it exists.
There's a problem with incorporating copyrighted material. I won't say that's definitely why someone removed it from the article, but it's an important concern. —Tamfang (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
IMHO there's nothing wrong per se with a collage but the collage displayed to the right is far to large for an infobox, especially one that includes as much information as the one in this article. Thomas.W (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, the current picture is certainly sufficient. But I think the question is more whether the collage is an improvement. Personally I think it's nice to highlight different viewpoints prominently, if that can be done economically. There are also a lot of Article Feedback comments on this article that say "I want more pictures!"
Usually, if someone wants to do something that has been discussed before and rejected, the proposed change has to ameliorate the concerns previously aired. The montage debate has occurred on and off over the past two years (if not longer), and no one on the pro-montage side has actually addressed previous concerns, specifically this one (I'll let Paul.h do the talking):
"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 montage doesn't add anything new to the article. Not only does it repeat content contained below, it creates clutter in the infobox, and there's a lot there to begin with. One iconic picture of San Francisco should capture the reader's attention, and if they're interested, they can see the other great photos below. There's no need to stuff everything to the top of the article; it ends up being distracting. --Kurykh (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Collage, montage, mosaic—call it what you will, but it adds clutter. The infobox should be for quick reference, not out-of-context decoration. With one image at the top, the caption can explain all that is needed. If there is a collage/montage in the infobox, the caption struggles and fails to place each image in its cultural context. I prefer to see the various images distributed throughout the article, especially such that an image appears in the appropriate section where the text helps explain it. Finally, the infobox is a tall vertical challenge to the article's layout. If there is a collage/montage at the top, the infobox is made that much taller and more inaccessible without more scrolling. I think having one image at the top is better layout, better looking and better for an artistically oriented city such as San Francisco; a city that would be expected to buck the mean in favor of the elegant. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Considering a deep discussion on the usage of collages in general on Wikipedia hasn't occurred, I keep looking towards other articles of prominent cities. In this post I'll try to answer a couple of arguments with counter-arguments.
Whether a collage clutters the start of an article is a matter of opinion and design of the collage. The most objective argument I have for this is that New York City, Las Vegas and Los Angeles to name a few which have like-sized collages, do not have a discussion on whether or not it clutters or indeed a discussion on whether it's neccesary at all. (I am not trying to cherry-pick here, I am uncertain whether there are articles that have had this discussion other than San Franciso). As for the argument that those are also too large; Subjective but sure, then size it down.
A discussion on whether it's necessary at all brings me to my next argument: I'd argue that cities such as the aforementioned and San Francisco have such a significant cultural and popular culture value that a collage is more appropriate to greet a viewer with the well-known landmarks of a city. Analogous, a viewer of the World War II article would be met by iconic or well-known moments of the war in the article's head image.
In summary, personally I'm all for making the collage smaller but I feel there is enough merit to have a collage in this article and many other prominent city articles. FabulousMcDonalds (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Demonstrating whether a collage is used at other city articles or not is an insufficient argument. If local consensus is against having a collage at a certain city article, then that consensus should be respected. A cookie-cutter approach to Wikipedia goes only so far... You might want to check out the Emily Dickinson which is a Featured Article yet it has no infobox at all. The editors there decided the infobox was ugly or clunky or too brief, that the reader should be drawn into reading the article for context. Here, the argument is that the collage is too tall vertically, and devoid of context for the contained images. Binksternet (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps because it IS San Francisco, the Golden Gate Bridge the magnificent Gate that it spans, the view of the bay itself, and the city's world famous skyline seems to be so nicely captured in the picture there now that I see no reason for a collage. Other cities are not as fortunate to be able to capture all that in one shot. The many other attributes, too many to list, and too many to place pictures for at the top of the article, are sufficiently covered below. Over time, better and greater pictures of those attributes will show up because it is so easy to get great photography now with a point and shoot camera from Costco, let alone the professional stuff that abounds. The arguments over what would be included in the collage are also something I do not want us wasting time on. For me, this one magnificent photo in a bloated (90% of it for good reason) article is sufficient. After all it is San Francisco, and the list of iconic attributes is a mile long. Let us leave LA and Vegas to their own misfortune of not having one great iconic view, which can capture so much in a single shot, possible. I'm for letting it remain as it is...with the picture of the bridge and the skyline, etc. That is plenty and everything else is closeby. Norcalal (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
What is wrong with this??
I hope you like this one. I found it on commons. It was created by User:Monsieur Fou.
I put this montage of San Francisco up. I found it on commons. It was made by User:Monsieur Fou. It has all the copyright information and everything. This User:Thomas.W keeps taking it down and putting one picture of SF from the Marin Highlands. NYC, LA, Chiacgo, and even Las Vegas have montages so why not SF???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollack man34 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 31 December 2012 UTC
I like the simplicity of the existing image (instead of the collage, which is a bit busy), which captures the city very well. In the end, it is an artistic decision with no "right" answer. SeaphotoTalk20:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Well it's good to see you stop edit warring and instead engage on the talk page. Did you read the various discussions about photo montages on this page? There is no clear consensus to have one and to your assertion that some cities have them - it would be easy to counter with other world-class cities that don't have them. Consensus is not for ever, it can change (WP:CCC), so let's see what comes of this discussion. As someone who has been a resident in San Francisco in the past, I don't think the current infobox image is great, but I really don't like montages as they trivialise each of the elements that make them up. The lesser of two evils is the current image, but I'd love to see a better (non-montage) image in the infobox. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to create and propose whatever you want to - then let's see if consensus among editors is to add it to the article. My own comments/opinions about montages still stand though. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Well do you like this one? Simple and captures the city well.
My view on it is clear, no montage. Montages look cluttered and cheap (which might be why they use one on Las Vegas), in bright contrast to a single image of the Golden Gate Bridge, which fits SF perfectly. In addition to that changing to a montage has been discussed here earlier, with the consensus being not to use one. Thomas.W (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I looked up some major cities in the US and overseas. Many have collages, and most of these are terrible (Chicago in particular}. In general, they look like bad versions of postcards you see being sold in Convenience stores and gift shops. Again, this is just a personal preference, but I prefer a single image in the info box, with a gallery in the article itself. Maybe there should be a wider discussion infobox photos to build a Wiki-wide consensus, but in this case I still like the single image, though you have improved the initial image.SeaphotoTalk20:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay look. I know I have brought this up before but the Marin Highlands picture is really bugging me. The argument from all of you is that it captures the city nicely and montages are too all over the place. The picture from the Marin Highlands is a beautiful picture, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't capture the entire city it captures two things, the skyline and the Golden Gate. That is it!!!! There is much more to San Francisco than those two things. Chinatown, City Hall, the cable car system, Fisherman's Wharf, the "painted ladies" near Alamo Square and so much more. This montage helps capture much more of San Francisco, plus the Golden Gate and the skyline as in the previous picture. Come on, let's just try this for a little while. I think you will find that you like the montage. It shows much more of the city than that picture. Once again, it is a nice picture but doesn't show enough of all that San Francisco has to offer!!! — Preceding Pollack man34 comment added by Pollack man34 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, for most of the reasons brought up waaaaay back in December of 2012. And please take note of my edit summary. If a consensus emerges here that the montage is better, then the change can be made. But not before. AlexiusHoratius02:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. San Francisco is far too complex for a montage to catch the breadth. That's why I like the GG headlands photo with GG Bridge and the city in the distance. Otherwise, the montage is going to be completely inadequate to catch all of the following: Third Street soul food Mission District Latin food, Mission District hipsters, Mission District murals, Mission Delores itself, old Candlestick Park, PacBell Park, Hunter's Point, Twin Peaks, the Zoo, Great Highway and the beach, the Olympic Club golf course, Land's End, Palace of Fine Arts, Palace of the Legion of Honor, Pier 39 sea lions, vintage F Line cars, Stockton Street Chinese markets, the Ferry Building farmer's market, Golden Gate Park carousel, the Haight district, the Fillmore district, Japantown, North Beach, the Castro, Folsom Street Fair, the Black & White Ball, the Bay Lights, Aquatic Park, Lombard Street's steep section, the Filbert Steps, South of Market, Union Square, the Art Institute, the Fairmont Hotel, the Mark Hopkins Hotel, the Bohemian Club, Mel's Diner, Lefty O'Doul's, Dogpatch, the St. Francis Hotel, Polk Gulch, Union Street shopping, the Marina, Hyde Street Pier, Buena Vista bar, Hardly Strictly Bluegrass, Bay to Breakers, Harrington's, the Castro Theatre, the old Pacific Stock Exchange building, the City Club, those guys that play speed chess at Powell and Market, the nudists or the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence at Castro and Market, Potrero Hill, Coit Tower, Sutro Tower, Sutro Baths, the Museum of Modern Art, Yerba Buena Garden, the fireboats, the Palace Hotel, Lotta's Fountain, Chinese New Year... you get the idea. Rather than giving our reader the idea that there are seven important aspects to the city (or eight, or nine), I would like to make it more mysterious, such that you must jump into the article to find out the details. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, what would, in your opinion, be a good montage for San Francisco. One that's not cheaply thrown together, captures the city well, and contains what??? --Pollack man34 (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
As I wrote, we've been through this before. We don't want a montage, period. So just leave the infobox as it is, and find something else to do. Thomas.W (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The montage shown as an example is not flawed by itself; it is not "cheaply thrown together" or anything bad. As a montage, it's fine. The problem is that editors here do not want a montage or a cookie-cutter imposition of style. The editors here want an article with its own style. Binksternet (talk) 05:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The editor who suggested the montage missed all the previous discussion and an edit war, I believe over this question. Editors constantly present in this article determined by consensus to NOT place a montage in the lead. I was in agreement then and remain in agreement that the iconic bridge/skyline picture remain. I shudder to think of the potential of the endless discussion of which of 50 amazing attributes should/will be included in a montage. Let us montage Freemont or Sausalito and leave SF be....Norcalal (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. its a very nice montage, and it does cover a pretty good selection of some of the more notable features of sf. However, my gut reaction when shown at the SFBA task force page was: i think i prefer a single image, its not promotional in feel. I can see there is endless discussion, usually resulting in keeping a single image. I agree that deciding on a subset of the city's features would be basically impossible. I know that some editors disapprove of this practice (i dont), but the proposer could consider adding the image to Template:San Francisco attractions. I would not have a problem with that, unless its actually against policy (is it?).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Weak Oppose, this is my first comment regarding this subject, as when I lived in the Bay Area I was on the peninsula, and not the "City" proper. That being said, the images used appears to be overly promotional, the city is not just the highly notable landmarks but also the neighborhoods that make up the majority of the city. What about the sunset district, twin peaks, golden gate park, the presidio, the mission, etc.?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Archive
Is there a reason we arent archiving old comments? this page goes back to 2009. If no one objects, i will archive through december 2012.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Cityscape section wide image forces page width on Android?
Source 18, which directs to a Euromonitor blog, in no way validates the claim that San Francisco is the 44th top tourist destination in the world, nor the 6th top in America, as stated in the introduction. A new source ought to be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.118.104 (talk • contribs) (18:18, 10 July 2013 UTC)
In the Economy section on the main page, the paragraph lists 'Wells Fargo' and 'Tourism' both as the city's largest private-sector employer. I dont have the ability to confirm which one is actually the largest, but clearly it cannot be both. Both an edit and clarification are required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekeg37 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
History
The article History of San Francisco is 50kb, while the section in this article is 30 kb. in contrast, History of Los Angeles is 124kb, while the section on its history in the Los Angeles article is 14kb. I think it would be better to shrink the history of SF here to a brief overview, as with LA, and make sure the major editing is only done at the history article. This, however, is a little beyond my editing skills, so its not something i can be bold about.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Commons
I am cleaning up the SF category at the commons, and should be finished soon, so images should be easier to find for specific topics.(User:Mercurywoodrose) 50.193.19.66 (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Sports
Among major professional sports teams, this article mentions the Giants, who are based in San Francisco, and the 49ers, who are not. Though they maintain the name "San Francisco" and have historically played home games in SF, their headquarters have been in Santa Clara for quite some time and they are moving their home games there as well.
I do not think it appropriate to delete reference to the 49ers in this page simply because they are no longer located in San Francisco. I think an appropriate standard would to include which major professional sports teams contain San Francisco within their local broadcast territories. Among teams not playing home games in San Francisco, this would include the 49ers, Raiders, A's, Sharks and Warriors. Additionally, like the 49ers, the Raiders, Sharks and Warriors all at one time played home games in San Francisco (depending on your view of the Cow Palace). Some special focus should remain placed on the 49ers, due to their longstanding historical ties to San Francisco. I would further argue that the Warriors should have some special focus since they once used the name "San Francisco", played in the city, and have a stated intention to move both their offices and home games to the city by 2018.
Considering that this talk page has had 3 comments in the past 6 months, and fewer than 20 in the past year, I'm not sure a lengthy discussion among editors is going to happen. Would prefer if future editors worked with my contribution to distill it down to its most important elements. -173.8.135.129 (talk) 01:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I see you've revereted again. I'm not going to undo because I have no interest in getting into an edit war. I would instead ask that you yourself revert back my entire contribution (as there are more edits in there than simply adding the names of more teams) and then remove those portions of my edit which you find require consensus. -173.8.135.129 (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Slightly Oppose. Just to clarify, I have read your edit. Which is why I felt this needed to be discussed. This is a tough one. In support of, why are the NE Patriots included in Boston's article? I mean, I understand why the Jets and Giants are included in New York's, since they are part of the metro area, even if they aren't in the same state, but NE? However, Oakland has its own identity, should the Raiders be included in SF or Oakland? The teams in Anaheim aren't included in the LA article. I guess my perspective is that NE is ALWAYS associated with Boston, while GS is NEVER associated with SF, just like the Raiders are always associated with Oakland, not SF. I think a mention of their historical connection to the city is extremely appropriate, even necessary, but now it's like saying the Eagles play in NY. But until a consensus is reached, I don't think the article should include anything of this breadth. Onel5969 (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The Warriors are, culturally, a Bay Area team. They were in San Francisco, moved over to Oakland, and now they're moving back to SF again. Their logo is the Bay Bridge, which spans the two cities. Their fan base is the entire Bay Area. You'll find that basketball fans in SF support the Warriors as the home team. So, while they may not warrant quite as much coverage as the Giants (or even the Niners), I do think they deserve a substantial mention. Brycehughes (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
In Summary, as to the ultimate fate of this nickname: its popularity, possibly over a decade ago, parallels another roughly, such that: They wont touch this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
1940 racial data
San Francisco has a minority-majority population, as non-Hispanic whites comprise less than half of the population, 41.9%, down from 92.5% in 1940.
Why compare 2010 data with 1940? Comparing it from 2000 to 2010 makes sense, but 1940 was 70 years before. Of course the demography of the city is different, but it seems like rather pointless trivia. 71.205.30.16 (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The Med. climate Wikipedia article says that "Warm-summer Mediterranean climate" is also known as "Cool-summer...", and there is no Köppen Csc classification (Balmaceda, Chile, is likely mislabeled; on a Köppen map it seems to be in a Cwc region). Your source, Climatemps, agrees with San Francisco having a Csb classification, which is described as a "warm mediterranean/ dry-summer subtropical climate", but the latter seems an informal description. "Warm" and "cool" seem to be equally valid (perhaps "cool" seems a better contradistinction to Csa, "Hot-summer Mediterranean climate"). If that's the case, then I don't see a reason to change the text. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The warm-summer Mediterranean climate sometimes being wrongly referred to as cool-summer Mediterranean does not mean that we should do likewise. Mediterranean climate says that warm-summer Med climate is occasionally termed cool-summer Med, not that it is also correctly known as that. There is a Csc in Koeppen; it is a cool-summer Mediterranean climate, and only exists in very small areas at high altiutude. A Koeppen map would have to be on a very close-up scale to show such areas. Balmaceda's climate chart shows that it is Csc. It is not Cwc, that requires dry winters; Balmaceda's precipitation is concentrated in the winter. Calling Csb cool-summer is a bad idea not only because that is what Csc is rightly called, but because Csb includes places such as Cape Town and Porto whose summers are nothing like cool. The source I provided clearly states that SF is Csb and that it has warm summers, not cool. SF doesn't even have cool winters, let alone cool summers. Jim Michael (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with User:Dhtwiki. I wrote about it here. Based on temperatures and rain, must be about 4 varieties of Mediterranean climate, including "mild-summer Mediterranean" (San Francisco), "very warm (not jet hot)-summer Mediterranean" (Barcelona), "very hot -summer Mediterranean" (Seville) etc. Koeppen pushed the cities into two categories though do not meet its own requirements. A perfect example is San Francisco, according to climate classification 10 to 17.9 °C (50.0 to 64.2 °F) is "l — mild", downtown of San Francisco in the warmest month have average daily 16.4°C, so - mild, not warm but Koeppen push San Francisco to "warm-summer Mediterranean". This is just one example. Koeppen all cities within mild zone of Mediterranean put to "warm-summer Mediterranean" and all cities within very warm zone and very hot zone of Mediterranean put to "hot-summer Mediterranean" because in Koeppen classification there are only two varietes of Mediterranean.
Also, climatemps.com is not reliable source. Several sources of a similar type were removed from Wikipedia on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Reliable meteorological sources are only climate classification and official (national) meteorological agencies. I'm sure that if I show climatemps.com at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, it will be removed as source from Wikipedia as not reliable. According to me, climatemps.com is good as an additional source, in articles where there are no official data or no sources at all. But you abusing this page, you treat it as a major source for your version. I do not want to create applications on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and remove source from Wikipedia, so - please stop use unreliable source to basic climate informations in articles, for example [1], [2]. This source can be used, eg. for the data about sunshine hours etc, if no other sources, because better indicative data from unreliable source than no data in article. Subtropical-man talk (en-2)21:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that if the Wikipedia article on Köppen classifications and the accompanying map are deficient (and I see no source for that), then that page should be changed first, before one worries about individual cities. That's for consistency. Another point of consistency regards other towns, such as Berkeley, that are also labeled Csb Cool Summer etc., and which feel warmer than SF in the summer. I think that purely in emotional terms "warm summer" would be quibbled with, especially by people visiting from the east, even if it turns out that San Francisco, which is regarded as a complex micro-climate zone resisting blanket categorization, technically deserves that description. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll leave it up to you guys how and where to include it, but the article should mention the very prominent Chinese and Cantonese name for the place t舊金山 or s旧金山 (pJiù Jīnshān, cGau⁶ Gam¹ Saan¹), which is still often preferred to the (in Chinese eyes) insanely long English name. (The 旧 distinguishes it from other Jinshans in China, as well as "New Jinshan".) — LlywelynII01:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Nicknames of San Francisco-Someone volunteer to write it?
I invite anyone to write a section on the Nicknames of San Francisco, including that "verboten" term "Frisco", after the History section, or a brand new article, with a Subsection "Nicknames" and few words in this article. Mistakefinder (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Your recent edit to the article merely added to the lead what was already in the infobox, and the infobox entries have citations, which you do not at least copy to the lead, by reference. Unless you think you can add something to what the infobox has, I wouldn't encourage your project. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Density calculations are wrong
The automatic density calculations in the infobox are wrong and indeed wildly contradict the opening paragraph; they appear to be including the considerable water area around the City. -- pde (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Cityscape panoramas
I'm all for images that help illustrate article content ... but I don't see the value in having three panoramic images that only only slightly differ in how wide an area and time of day.
They are effectively redundant; so I think it better if we can get consensus on which one is the best quality and illustrative for the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Barek for the most part, although I could see an argument made for keeping #2 and ONE of the other two, since they show different perspectives, however #2 is a stunningly unremarkable shot (stunning because SF is a really photogenic city). Keeping 1 & 3 is completely redundant, since they show almost exactly the same shot (slightly different angle). If I had to choose one, I would keep #1, which I feels gives a better example of SF's skyline than #2. I usually prefer night shots, since they tend to be more dramatic, but #3 is a bit blurry. So my choice would be #1. Onel5969 (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with keeping #1 and #2.
#1 is the oldest in time (2006) and thus has historical value. It's a bit hazy, but its focus is very good (it's a featured picture), although its color saturation is not. Its panoramic scope is good (it's the middle of the three), extending, along the waterfront, from the ballpark to Russian Hill.
#2 is a superior photo, even though on principle I try to revert photographers placing their own work without attempting discussion on placement. It's well focused on a clear night, showing a striking sunset effect, but also showing shaded buildings clearly, with good color saturation. It's not just the most panoramic side-to-side, extending from the ballpark to the Marina, but also near-to-far, showing upper Market-Twin Peaks to good effect in the foreground. It's thus the most informative of the three.
#3 is a pretty photo, but it is blurry from lackluster focus and overexposure. Plus it's the least panoramic. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
That's a colorful and evocative photo (and another one near sunset), but you've left the Financial District in the distance and in the shade, when that is what the current photo, placed in the Economy section, is meant to show. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Lead paragraph
The new lead by Haldraper was insufficient. It said, "San Francisco (/sænfrənˈsɪskoʊ/) is a city in the U.S. state of California. BUT, it omits the city's political status, its population and population density, its official name, or its comparison to other cities in California. As this is a featured article on Wikipedia, I would prefer that there can be a compromise between the two leads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicgenius (talk • contribs) 17:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
While I agree the lead is slightly long, I don't think the issue lies in the opening paragraph, but rather in the second and third paragraphs. I think Epicgenius is correct that the opening lead info is important. I think that the second half of the second paragraph, which basically says that SF has become a liberal center in the US, could be pared down to a single sentence, and then all the factors listed gone over in the body of the article, either in the history or culture sections. Similarly, the long list of companies is absurd. That information should definitely be moved to the Economy section, and simply state how many Fortune 100 (or 400) companies have their headquarters in the city. My suggestion would be:
for the 2nd half of the second paragraph: "After the war, a confluence of a multitude of factors led San Francisco to become a center of liberal activism in the United States." end of paragraph. Onel5969 (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The montage, frankly, is a horrific hodgepodge. It clutters up the infobox, needlessly bombards people with superfluous, distracting information, and repeats stuff that is further down the article. The current image is beyond sufficient: the goal is to encapsulate the city in one image, not shoehorn every single detail into some ideal morass. Look into the archives here for the arguments against a montage; you're repeating the same arguments (or lack thereof) that have been refuted and rejected time after time after time. --Kurykh (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Kurykh Judging from most major city articles on Wikipedia that I've visited, a good majority of them have a montage. I'm guessing then that most people think a montage is better than a single image. The idea of "encapsulating the city in one image" cannot be done unless you think San Francisco is nothing but the Golden Gate Bridge and a blurry skyline from a decade ago. Also, 5-7 images neatly arranged isn't clutter.Wealthgapfirefighter (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, you are repeating the same arguments that have been rejected; they do not and have not become more valid over time. What other city articles do have little to no relevance here; every community of editors for each article can have a different consensus. Your point about the lead image would make sense only if it was the only image in the article. Evidently, there are other images, accessible simply by scrolling down. The infobox is supposed to be a brief snapshot and a summary, not a let's-shove-everything-in-your-face exercise. Saying that "5-7 images neatly arranged" is not clutter is downright odd; having tiny, disparate images crowded into the top of an infobox is clutter by definition. Some people may tolerate it; others find it completely pointless and unnecessary. --Kurykh (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, I urge you to read through the archives and address the arguments against a montage. They need to be addressed first. Also, saying "I'm guessing then that most people think a montage is better than a single image" assumes the guess is correct...when it's actually wrong. There has never been a general discussion on montages, and the question has been left to individual articles. So you're going to have to argue the merits of a montage here specifically, especially since this issue has been discussed here numerous times. --Kurykh (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
-Kurykh I understand your point about repetition, but so what? A montage gives you a brief photo-summary of the article. I would agree with you if you said repeating the same photo is pointless. You are also wrong about the definition of clutter, which is: "a collection of things lying about in an untidy mass." A montage is a deliberate arrangement of photos, you make it sound like they are simply flung against the infobox. Wealthgapfirefighter (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Calling out the repetition is important because the onus is on you (per WP:CON) to demonstrate that the change is worthwhile. So far, all the pro-montage arguments have been repeated again and again for the last 4-5 years as if they are suddenly profound, while the answers to those questions have not changed and countervailing concerns remain unaddressed.
How is a photo-summary helpful if the current image is illustrative of the city and is meant to be illustrative? The current image instantly identifies the article's subject. As asserted in past discussions, a montage trivializes, not accentuates, the images thrust at the fore, especially since they're small enough to look crammed and uninviting but large enough to take up significant real estate. Diversity of images for diversity's sake does not better the article.
I'm not sure what dictionary you're using, but Merriam-Webster defines clutter as "to fill or cover (something) with many things" or "to fill or cover with scattered or disordered things that impede movement or reduce effectiveness." A montage fits both definitions: there are multiple images strewn at the top, being distracting rather than illustrative of the city. The crowding and the disparateness have the same effect as flinging images against the infobox, however deliberate their arrangement. --Kurykh (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Kurykh The key words from Merriam Webster's definition are "scattered" and "disordered," as in "to fill or cover with scattered or disordered things..." A montage is exactly not that because it IS ordered. By your logic, why is a lead photo necessary at all if your goal is simply to identify the article's subject, which is already accomplished by a bold headline? A photo-summary gives the visitor a sense of completeness, that the article is "exploring" the city. Additionally, why don't you extend your dislike of "repetition" to the introductory paragraph, much of which is basically restated later?Wealthgapfirefighter (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
How is your montage ordered? I don't think that the photos logically relate well to each other. You have a panorama with east on the left and west on the right. Below that you have the Golden Gate Bridge on the left, the Bay Bridge on the right. That said, you've brought to my attention some excellent photos. The panorama is from Coit Tower, not Twin Peaks, as is usual. It's almost 360°. It would make a fine candidate for the panorama section (but not without discussion; we had a discussion on what to keep there not long ago). Dhtwiki (talk) 04:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Your argument is non-responsive; it's essentially saying a montage is ordered because it's a montage, which is ordered...somehow. That's called circular reasoning. Beyond that, your response still leaves the first definition unaddressed. Also, the infobox, along with its images, is not meant to give a "sense of completeness"; that's why the rest of the article exists. Lastly, your entire hypothetical presumes that text and images are on the same footing, have the same importance, and should be treated identically. That logic is false: images supplement and illustrate relevant text, not the other way around. They are fundamentally on unequal footing and should be treated differently. Therefore, the logic regarding the introductory paragraph does not and should not extend to infobox images. --Kurykh (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Kurykh is 100% correct: the photo montage trivializes each of the images selected for the grouping. It's much better to use just one image if that one image identifies the city in a suitable manner, which exactly describes the photo of the Golden Gate Bridge with the city seen behind.
Perhaps the reason that other city articles have so many infobox montages is that a) there is no single image which immediately serves to identify that city, or b) the involved editors are not unified enough to preserve the article against those who prefer montages and consistency. I can assure you that the San Francisco article is consistently maintained by enough folks who care about visual clarity that a montage will not satisfy. Binksternet (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The images in a montage aren't meant to relate to each other directly, I never argued that, instead, they illustrate the overall character or feel of the city, which you can't get from one photo. Such a montage would not leave a visitor in a state of confusion.Wealthgapfirefighter (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
How can readers get confused? The article title says San Francisco, the infobox title says San Francisco, the image is that of the Golden Gate Bridge, and yet somehow they'll be confused and think it's an article about Justin Bieber or something? The argument is ridiculous and grasping at straws. The infobox image is not supposed to "illustrate the overall character or feel of the city"; that's what the rest of the images in the article are for. The infobox image is supposed to instantly identify the city. The current image does that succinctly, without overwhelming the reader. A montage, on the other hand, trips over itself in trying to run the gamut and failing miserably. --Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure, as a lifelong resident of San Francisco, that the picture with the caption "Typical San Francisco geography" is actually a picture of somewhere in Marin county, NOT San Francisco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.191.223 (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The scene actually said Sausalito to me, not San Francisco, so even if we weren't to require the image be in San Francisco it would still be a poor choice for an image. Using Google Maps street view, I've confirmed the image is from along the Golden Gate Transit 10 route in Sausalito. Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on San Francisco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
As a native of the Bay Area, I have edited the sentence listing San Francisco's "nicknames" to note that "Frisco" and "San Fran" are deprecated. It is not uncommon in the Bay Area for people to become annoyed with those nicknames. "Fog City" I have never heard before. AmericanLeMans (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
It's cultural — some people call it Frisco, and then there's the motorcycle gang. Not doing so was mainly Herb Caen's thing. Lots of tourists call it SFO and San Fran, thinking they're down with something. SF is very common, but spelling it out, Esseff, is not. There's Sucker Free City,[4] and then San Pancho, a nickname for San Francisco, Nayarit, but occasionally comes north of the border for a visit to SF. We're probably forgetting a few. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Should it be nicknames that San Franciscans use, or what other people refer to it as. Frisco isn't in that first category, and I'm sure the second category is long and colorful. Fog City is legit-- see http://fogcitysf.com. Much of the Bay Area simply refers to San Francisco as "The City" despite it being only one of many cities in the area and not the largest. 155.63.71.10 (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The demographics section of this article is quite long. I'm planning on creating a new article focused on the Demographics of SF. I then plan to copy the demographics section to that page, and per WP:SUMMARY, trim the demographics section here to about half of its current length.
If you have objections, please speak up. I don't want to make significant changes to the article if that is going to upset a number of editors. CUA 27 (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The percentages for the historical population trend appear to be quite wrong. For example the growth between 1940 and 1950, should be over twenty percent. It appears that percentages for most years have been calculated incorrectly204.64.223.35 (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Uh, when you create an article from a section that has become lengthy, you need to shorten the original section. otherwise, the two will diverge in content. it really needs to be a summary statement here, with the full article there. its still too long here in my estimation.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Nicknamed "the city"
There aren't many sources for nicknames at all, but it is true, and reliably sourced, that like several United States cities, locals in San Francisco and nearby refer to SF as "the City". Here are a couple.[5][6][7][8] - Wikidemon (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Details on federal banks and courts, and on Silicon Valley in lead
Seetler has been adding detail to the lead that I think is too much, which I've reverted a number of times now. I think there's too much on the federal bank and appeals court, especially with regard to their size and when there's more detail in the lead on the subject than in the article. I also don't think we need to talk about Silicon Valley in detail, enumerating private companies headquartered there (especially when Twitter, which is actually in SF, isn't mentioned with equal prominence). Dhtwiki (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Briefly Detailing the Importance of Silicon Valley in lead relating to San Francisco
I believe that Dhtwiki is removing crucial details that helps the user understand the city of San Francisco. I strongly believe that the value of discussing the role banks and Silicon Valley in the header of San Francisco. Even if it's a brief sentence. When most people think of SF, they think of technology and the financial systems that support it.
What do you think of when you say SF? rich techies. Silicon Valley and Venture Capital, and the average user needs to understand its relation to SF.
Leaving aside the undue amount of detail, you're putting in the first paragraph of the lead material that is more suitable to the third, where banks and companies (but not the courts) are mentioned. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
You haven't addressed the concerns about having so much financial detail in the lead at all and its being misplaced in the first paragraph. You need to propose wording and positioning here, and then wait for agreement (i.e. consensus) before you go changing the article again. Also, you need to remember to indent and sign your posts. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
IMHO, San Francisco's importance in "Silicon Valley" is greatly exaggerated. Most of the tech companies are located in other cities, and SF is not even the largest city in the area. Kortoso (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Climate
This edit in 2014, by a now blocked user Lieutenant of Melkor, introduced citations <ref name = NOAA/> without defining them. The article has been with these broken refs ever since. Someone familiar with climate data should see if what the section says is really backed up by – NOAA and if so, properly adding these citations – or, failing that, return old sourced content from the preceding diff. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
San Francisco Sports
I have added a brief description to the sports sub category about the Golden State Warriors because even though they are not exclusive to San Francisco, a large portion of their fan base resides there.
"The San Francisco Warriors played in the NBA from 1962-1971, before being renamed the Golden State Warriors prior to the 1971- 1972 season in an attempt to present the team as a representation of the whole state of California.[203] The Warrior's stadium, Oracle Arena, is currently located in Oakland, California.[204] They have won 4 championships[205], including their most recent in 2015."
I have added just a few of the most popular tourist attractions described by the Travel Channel.
"Some of the most popular tourist attractions in San Francisco noted by the Travel Channel include the Golden Gate Bridge and Alamo Square Park, which is home to the famous "Painted Ladies". Both of these locations were often used as landscape shots for the hit American sitcom Full House. There is also Lombard Street, known for its "crookedness" and beautiful views. Tourists also flood to Pier 39, which offers dining, shopping, entertainment, and beautiful views of the bay, sun-bathing seals ,and the famous Alcatraz Island.[162]
San Francisco also offers tourists cultural and unique nightlife in its neighborhoods.[163]"
I have added a brief description about the private buses being supplied by Silicon Valley companies and their effect on city buses.
"To accommodate the large amount of San Francisco citizens who commute to the Silicon Valley daily, companies like Google and Apple have begun to provide private bus transportation for their employees, from San Francisco locations to the tech start-up hotspot. These buses have quickly become a heated topic of debate within the city, as protesters claim they block bus lanes and delay public buses.[277]"
Moved homelessness from Law and Government/Crime to Demographics/Education, Households, and Income
I've moved Homelessness from Law and Government/Crime to Demographics/Education, Households, and Income as it is a demographic condition, not a crime.
I've also removed the reference to homelessness from the list of crimes that are common to the Tenderloin in the Crime section. When homelessness is indeed common in the Tenderloin, it is again not a crime to be homeless and therefore not specifically relevant to the Crime section.
For the past few years, it is generally known that crime has been rising in San Francisco, perhaps at an alarming rate. After 2015 data came in, which I realized when I saw some numbers change on familiar cities, I checked San Francisco on neighborhoodscout.com to see that San Francisco is now a 2 out of 100, lower than it was before, while other cities went up. Of course changes can mean other places got better or worse, but San Francisco is definitely quite bad at this point. Oakland is a 1 and Berkeley is a 3, I believe Berkeley moved down, and Oakland moved up, from being a 0. Rochester, New York and Miami moved up, New York City's boroughs seem pretty level, I don't remember the old numbers. B137 (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 21 external links on San Francisco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 4 external links on San Francisco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
We need a new cityscape/skyline for SF featuring the salesforce tower, and a shot of it singly, for this article. its now the major landmark in the region. we dont have an appropriate image at the commons. please, get out there and shoot it!Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on San Francisco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
In 1869, Norton I, Emperor of the United States and Protectir of Mexico abolished the Democratic and Republican parties. And, in 1872, he issued the following edict:
"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."
Hi all, I wanted to question whether the current infobox image was the best representation we could get. The thumbnail looks sorta nice, however overexposed and slanted. Clicking in, you can see it's pretty poor quality, very overexposed, and the colors don't look right. As well, the photo is almost a decade old by now. Can I suggest something like File:SF from Golden Gate Bridge.jpg? It wasn't as bright or pretty a day, but you can see the actual city much, much better, and the bridge is less of a focal point (the article is about the city). You can also see much more of the city, and the Bay Bridge. If someone wants the RAW file of this to play around, I can send it. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)14:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I've added thumbnails, of both photos, to the top of the section, for easy comparison. I don't see that your photo is enough of an improvement to make a switch. At highest resolution, the buildings in both photos are indistinct. Having the iconic GG Bridge in the foreground helps to make the distinction that this is San Francisco, where that might not be as easy to see with just part of one main cable in the foreground (is that photo taken by someone perched on the other cable?). That you can "see much more of the city" amounts to being able to see Telegraph Hill and the northeast shore partly obscured by the bridge cable handrails. The Bay Bridge is indistinct, fading into the background. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I was just suggesting something like mine. It's odd for such a large and oft-photographed city with good views to use such a poor photo that washes out the entire city. Let's hope there are other better photos out there; the Marin Headlands are very popular for photos like this. A Wikipedian could try reshooting this too. I disagree with most of your assessment (esp. because people will know it's SF, having gone to this article), but let's see what others say. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)14:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
It would be nice to have one with the new tallest, Saleforce Tower, completed. I feel like the current one is a misrepresentation at this point. Subterranean (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on San Francisco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 3 external links on San Francisco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Both of the sites presented for the claimed May 2001 and July 1988 record maxima seem to be personal sites (and hence not WP:RS). According to the official NWS source, the downtown site did not record a maximum temperature for either 30 May 2001 or 17 July 1988. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Homelessness/panhandling barely talked about
The article seems to paint a pretty rosy view of San Francisco. As a native of the bay area, I am surprised that homelessness, panhandling, and associated problems are not bigger issues in the article. These are serious social problems that affect everyone who lives in or visits San Francisco, and I think there should be some additions in these areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:1610:3be0:8586:cd8a:7ff6:9a44 (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Could someone please add a "climate chart" template?
Hi, I don't have the required knowledge or technical familiarity (or even a Wiki account) to do this myself, but I think it would greatly improve the article to add a climate chart in the style of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Climate_chart.
The detailed "weatherbox" table is useful but difficult to read. So in addition to that I would love it if one of you experienced Wikipedians could present the same data as a "climate chart" as well. The climate chart template would provide a less information-dense and quickly-readable way for readers to get an impression of San Francisco's climate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.220.86 (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on San Francisco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
By doing mass additions of archive links before they are needed, you're adding to the size of what every user needs to download to read the article; in the case of the edit linked above, it was over 40 kilobytes. When links go dead, either letting IABot fix them, whether automatically or by placing a dead-link template, or checking the link's site for the possibility of establishing a new direct link because the site has simply been reorganized, seem to be better alternatives than adding a massive amounts of useless wiki-text. There's also the probability that if links are repaired individually that the editor doing the repairing will be checking the reference's appropriateness to the article and making adjustments accordingly. BTW, if I find such archive links prematurely added when the amount of wiki-text added is less than about 10k bytes, I usually let it be, not because the principle is different but because the amount of potential disturbance is so much less. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I think you mean that the article requires "extended confirmed" permission (i.e. that you have made 500 edits from an account that is six months old) to edit until July 2019 due to "persistent vandalism". Others can suggest edits to make here, although that's no guarantee they'll be made. Dhtwiki (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2018
This edit request to San Francisco has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done. A new consensus for the montage must be achieved, as all the previous discussions about various montages resulted in the decision to keep the single photograph of the Golden Gate Bridge view of San Francisco. You can read Wikipedia:Requests for comment to see how a new consensus might be achieved. You should also look at the talk page archives to see why the previous discussions ended the way they did. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
New Picture
If we don't make a montage, at least let's get a new picture. The current one is low-resolution and the skyline is outdated. It's basically a picture of a cargo ship with the bridge and a fuzzy city in the background.Eccekevin (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm changing the linkage to the image, so that others can more easily examine it at various resolutions as well as the underlying images that make up the montage. IIRC, the infobox image was recently changed, probably to a more recent image that includes the Salesforce Tower, whose absence had been noted and inclusion felt to be needed. Although done without explanation, that new image seemed very similar in composition and quality to what had been there before, which is probably why it wasn't reverted. However, for the most part, it's better to have discussion on this page first. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Strange citation
At the end of the overview, SF is said to "[Be] the highest rated American city on world liveability rankings" as of 2017. However, it cites a page which shows 2018 ratings, and in the citations section says '2016'. Obviously, 2017 ≠ 2016 or 2018, so can someone find out what the correct year actually is? Foxingkat (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I just reworked the text and its reference to address your concerns, at least partially (the text doesn't mention Mercer per se and the linked article doesn't mention San Francisco). Dhtwiki (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Errors in "Government of San Francisco" article, "San Francisco plague of 1900 - 1904" section
Not done – I don't see where such a link would belong. Yesterday's election seems to be covered by California gubernatorial election, 2018 without articles relating city-by-city participation. I don't see detailed past or current election coverage here. What changes voted on (new officeholders, effects of propositions passed, etc.) will of course in time make their appearance here. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
.jpg)
Not done. 
.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/San_Francisco_California_Montage.jpg/280px-San_Francisco_California_Montage.jpg){kind=link}