Talk:San Francisco City Hall

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the San Francisco City Hall article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Architecture Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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 High-importance).

Jack London image

The Chronicle has a copy of a photo of the old City Hall, badly damaged after the '06 - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2006/01/06/BAGN3GI4NU1.DTL&o=2 The photo was taken by writer Jack London (who died in 1916). I don't know enough about US copyright law to know if this image is out of copyright yet. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Body snatchers city hall.jpg

Image:Body snatchers city hall.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting source

Hall Refit for Pomp and Happenstance I found this article about the 1990's remodel. Someone can add its info they like.User:calbear22 (talk) 07:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Million dollar wheelchair ramp

Interesting.[1] -- Kendrick7^talk 19:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pollarded Sycamore Trees?

Does anyone know if the trees outside of city hall are Sycamore trees? Jeff Carr (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, they are. --emerson7 23:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original building?

The article needs a photo of the 1899 building as it looked before destruction. --98.232.188.173 (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done --emerson7 23:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reflecting pool

Until the 1980s there was a reflecting pool next to City Hall. If I had any details on this I'd add the info myself! Please help? brain (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had a photo that I could lay my hands on, but I found this talk segment while trying to find a picture of the reflecting pool. The last time I was in San Francisco, I was 18 years old (soon to be 19), there was a heatwave, and it was May 1975. After walking through the sprinkler sprays in the park, I looked at the reflecting pool in front of the City Hall and thought it would be nice to paddle in it. I think there were some signs saying to keep out of the pool, but it was San Francisco and I was (and remain) an Englishman. So I sat on the coping, swung my legs round, and slipped in.

Surprise! The notices had given good advice. The pool was unnecessarily deep, and the water was half way up my chest -- maybe 4'6" deep (any passing metric busybody is welcome to provide an equivalent). But it was cool-ish and refreshing, and we didn't carry anything much with us in those days that might be damaged by damp. People accepted wet money then, and I believe that they still do.

So we are still waiting for somebody to supply a photo of the reflecting pool. :( JimInRoses (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5th Largest Dome?

The introductory text states that the City Hall dome is the 5th largest and includes a link to a Wikipedia largest dome article but the latter article does not mention San Francisco City Hall. I'm guessing that the 5th largest claim needs to be more narrowly made.Pegordon (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Garden 2008

I suggest adding a blurb about the Summer 2008 and WWII era 1943 Victory Gardens in front of SF City Hall. I don't remember when the 2008 Garden was disassembled - November 2008?Pegordon (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Locaition of original building

The original city hall actually sat up against Market Street and was roughly W-shaped, with a courtyard. Since Jimmy Wales STILL hasn't fixed the site to retrieve forgotten passwords, and I am NOT going to create yet another screen name, someone else needs to upload an image of a map: http://blog.historypin.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Screen-Shot-2013-07-03-at-3.18.06-PM.png --98.246.156.76 (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction in Dimensional Claims

This article states in the Summary paragraph under the heading

San Francisco City Hall

  The structure's dome is the fifth largest in the world - taller than that of the United States Capitol by 42 feet.[5][6]

The in the first paragraph under the heading:
===== Architecture ===== it states:

Template:Quotation: It is 19 ft (5.8 m) higher than the United States Capitol...

Haven't found a good source for the correct number but these two are in disagreement with each other.

Thaddeus Ballantine (talk) 04:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on San Francisco City Hall. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco City Hall Virtual Tour

For several years, there has been a link on the San Francisco City Hall wiki page to the San Francisco City Hall Virtual Tour(SFCHVT) website. Recently, Alexf decided that now this link was “inappropriate” and removed it. I wrote to AlexF, explained the history and purpose of the site, and asked him what he found “inappropriate” and what I could do to make it more appropriate. He responded that his action was “a question of policy” and that “the community, through consensus, must decide.” He instructed me to "place the link, and your reasoning, in the article's Talk Page," which is what I am now trying to do.

I believe that the SFCHVT site is appropriate for Wikipedia and a valuable addition to the San Francisco City Hall page. I ask that you restore the SFCHVT link and make it available for others who want to learn more about San Francisco City Hall; or let me know what you find wrong with it so that I may fix it. I welcome the wisdom of the community and hope to learn from it. Thanks, and please, gently let me know if I’m not doing this correctly. Budryerson (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the virtual tour on the official SF City Hall site, I see no harm in it. If you're talking about a commercial operation, Isee no reason to include it when there's a non-commercial alternative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: SFCHVT is very different from the "official" virtual tour. The "official" tour is utterly marvelous, but entirely visual. For all its wonderfulness, the "official" tour lacks a great deal. It doesn't offer any contextual information about what you might be looking at or external links to additional information. Also, the "official" tour is not up to date. For example, a new bust of Mayor Newsom is not there in the Mayor's Rotunda in the "official" tour. And, the "official" tour doesn't take you into some important areas such as the Mayor's Office or the Supervisor's Chamber. And on SFCHVT p.14, there's a link to a parallel virtual tour that takes you up to the top of the City Hall dome. You don't see that in the "official" tour.

SFCHVT is not a "commercial operation". The "official" tour is a creation of the Events Department. It's in a pull-down menu on their website, and it exists solely to support the mission of that department, which is entirely a "commercial operation." Events is all about vendors and venues and rentals and fees. Some people jokingly refer to City Hall as a "wedding factory," but it's more than that, much more.

I wish you would take a couple of minutes to visit SFCHVT. You would see that it is unique, knowledgeable, somewhat scholarly, and totally non-commercial. In fact, SFCHVT may look like a series of pages; but if you hit the "A" key, the site will display itself as one long, 78 page, encyclopedia-like article. SFCHVT may not be as slick as the "official" tour, but Wikipedia is not about being slick. It's about free, fair and accurate information. That's what I think. Budryerson (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the Events Department is an official department of City Hall, then it's not "commercial" no matter how many commercial events it helps to coordinate. Your response has convinced me, however, that your operation is a commercial one. Wikipedia is not a medium for commercial promotion, per WP:PROMOTION, so I do not think that a link to your site is appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken writes that my "response has convinced" him that the "operation is a commercial one," and cites Wikipedia's prohibition of "commercial promotion", namely WP:PROMOTION. But anyone who actually visited the unofficial San Francisco City Hall Virtual Tour(SFCHVT) website would see that it contains:

1. No Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind;
2. No Opinion pieces;
3. No Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping;
4. No Self-promotion; and
5. No Advertising, marketing or public relations.

All writing on SFCHVT is in an objective and unbiased style, article topics are verifiable with independent, third-party sources, and reference links are often included.

I truly appreciate the time and effort that Beyond My Ken has made, but SFCHVT does not remotely meet a single criteria of WP:PROMOTION. As stated before, SFCHVT is simply not commercial by any possible definition of the word, and it is not promoting anything except its subject matter.

I initiated this discussion in the hope of learning from the community. If there is a problem, I can solve it. If there is something that must change, I will be happy to change it. If Beyond My Ken would say why he believes that SFCHVT is a "commercial operation" or what it is that he finds objectionable, I will fix that, too. Please give SFCHVT a chance. Thank you for your time. Budryerson (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It's quite apparent to me that you want it to be listed with the ELs for "advertising, marketing or public relations". If other editors disagree, they can say so here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Well, SFCHVT was "listed with the ELs" for the last four years, and I think it would be nice if that continued. SFCHVT contains a lot of good information presented in a handy way that visitors find easy to use. I remain flabbergasted that anyone would think that I am engaging in "advertising, marketing or public relations," and unless you are defining those terms in some exotic way that I am not familiar with (and I'm certainly not the brightest person in the world), then nothing could be more untrue. So, can you help a fellow out? Will you please be kind enough to explain your thinking more fully? I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Budryerson (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's either a sign of a weak mind, or a fair one, but I've looked more closely at your website, and I've reversed my opinion: I think it should be included. It appears entirely non-commercial and would be a valuable link for our readers. I'm going to restore it now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]