Jump to content

Talk:Union Square, San Francisco

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I don't understand

[edit]

User:Stemonitis claims that the comma method is the dominant one, yet almost every article I see is using the parenthesis method. If I disagree with the decision, can I do another requested move. Chris! my talk 01:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review List of districts and neighborhoods of Los Angeles or Neighborhoods in San Francisco, California or Community areas of Chicago. The same pattern is true for articles on neighborhoods in most U.S. cities. --Coolcaesar 06:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Chris! my talk 18:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious history tidbit of Union Square garage

[edit]

It seems unlikely that this would ever warrant inclusion in the article, but if it prompts someone's curiosity regarding the area, then it'll be worth the note.

Back in the late 60s, when my family moved to the area and started skiing in the Sierras, there was an annual fall ski swap in the Union Square garage. Or at least I'm pretty sure -- I would have been 10 in 1969, so my recall of the big city might be confused, but I'm pretty certain. For all I know, it was sponsored by some merchant in the area, or it might simply have been normal practice to use underground garages for such purposes back then. Anyway, just thought I'd mention it. MrRedwood 22:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitchcock

[edit]

Vertigo is listed here, but I'm pretty sure Union square also appears in the opening scene of The Birds. The pet store in the movie is located across from Union Square. I have no source to site, but if you watch the movie and you know the area, it should be pretty obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.175.240 (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old Gothic Revival tower in Union Square?

[edit]

I was doing research for a paper on Victorian architecture in SF when I came across this image at the SF library photo archive of Union Square in 1934 with a Gothic Revival tower. Clearly it's not there today, and I can't seem to find any info about it online. Does anybody know anything about it, and do you think something about it should be included in the article? --Jml4000 (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Union Square, 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Union Square, 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image layout

[edit]

This article is in need of cleanup to conform with MOS:LAYIM, so I have added a cleanup tag to the article. North America1000 01:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the images are a mess. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Northamerica1000: I did a bit of cleanup. Do you still think the tag is needed? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: Please don't revert. The previous version looked terrible. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: Your edit has improved the article, in my opinion. North America1000 01:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for confirming. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have performed some edits now, such as moving the statue image to the Public art section and adding content about the statue to this section. This is in congruence with WP:LAYIM, and has better-organized the article, imo. North America1000 01:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also added a short caption to the lead image, as per WP:LAYIM, which states, "All images should also have an explanatory caption". North America1000 01:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statue image should be located within the Public art section, where it's content is located in the article. This is very simple, as per WP:LAYIM, which states that image placement should be "relevant to the sections they are located in". Having the image placement at the bottom of the History section makes the article look sloppy, imo, and goes against the grain of WP:LAYIM. North America1000 03:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:LAYIM is a guideline, it is not mandatory, As an admin, you should know that, and that edit warring -- as you have done -- to enforce MOS has been rejected by ArbCom on several occasions.
    The image is located to the immediate right of the section it pertains to. That the top of the image is above the section header is completely irrelevant, since, visually, it's connected to the section on its left. We do not read it as connect to the "History" section above it, we read it as being connected to the "Public Art" section on its side. These are fundamental aspects of proper visual layout. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No edit warring here. A discussion was already started here, and you just quickly reverted, rather than discussing that matter as has began above. So, now you are discussing; good. Keep in mind that WP:OWNERSHIP is a policy, and you seem to have claimed a long-term ownership of this article, repeatedly instantly reverting any changes performed by other users. Discussion is the means to resolve matters. North America1000 03:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that WP:Casting aspersions is also a policy, so I expect to see, here and now, your factual -- not interpretive -- evidence that I am claiming ownership of this article. What I am doing is what I do to hundreds of articles, attempting to make it look as good as it possibly can.
    Now, the evidence please, or withdraw your aspersion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at the page's Revision history, here. Now look at the many areas where it states "Undid revision" with your user name next to it. I have struck part of my comment above, although this was not casting aspersions whatsoever; it was a query about your repeated instant reversions relative to the policy. I'm going to go and work on improving the article now, such as by adding references as I have been doing. North America1000 03:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your claim is that reverting edits is a sign of ownership? Where, precisely, is that codified in WP:OWN?
    No need to look, it isn't, because it's an absolutely absurd claim. I revert when an edit does not improve an article, and I do it for many hundreds of articles. Am I trying to WP:OWN all of those articles? Perhaps I'm trying to WP:OWN all of Wikipedia? Having a Watchlist means that a goodly percentage of one's edits when going through the watched articlesvare going to be reverts, or else why be watching the article at all, except to protect them from edits which degrade them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, since you asked, ("So your claim is that reverting edits is a sign of ownership? Where, precisely, is that codified in WP:OWN? No need to look, it isn't, because it's an absolutely absurd claim."), see excerpts from WP:OWN below (bold emphasis mine). It's right there. I would really rather move on, but since you characterized my concerns as "absurd" regarding what's stated on the page, you can see the proof in the pudding. Perhaps you read a different page? Also, when people's changes are removed without actually reverting using the article's Revision history, it's still a reversion. So, there's what's stated at WP:OWN about reverting others edits. I didn't make it up, it's right there. Don't take it personally, but I do disagree with some of your work on the article. And sorry, but your notion that no content is present on the WP:OWN page regarding reversion is absolute hogwash; the actual absurd notion here. Seriously, is that how you read the WP:OWN page? Regarding the actual article, hopefully we can all compromise and it will become better. Feel free to respond, perhaps even with the last word, as I don't foresee this discussion leading to any improvements to the article at this point. It's about the article, right, or is it about what is stated at the WP:OWN page? I prefer to focus on the former. North America1000 09:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(WP:OWN excerpts, with comments in parentheses)

  • An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. (The "daily" part does not apply, because the article is not edited daily. Constant reversions of any layout changes to the article can certainly be interpreted as disputing those changes.)
  • An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.
  • An editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Repeating such no-reason reversions after being asked for a rationale is a strong indicator of ownership behavior.
If you're convinced I'm attempting to OWN the article, I suggest that ANI is that way. Be my guest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the statue image in the article, I feel that it looks better as it presently is in the article, after BMK self-reverted their movement of the image above the Public art section (diff). Sure, WP:LAYIM is a guideline, but the image scrunched between the sections makes the line between sections shortened in two areas, making the page look sloppy. Now, only one line is shortened. North America1000 04:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Why do you insist on forced image widths? You've reverted me several times without explanation. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because images should be presented at a size which the reader can actually see their content. We should never force our reader to click through simply to see what the image is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. We should use the default setting and users can change image preferences under their own settings. See Help:Pictures#Thumbnail_sizes. Just because you want a certain width doesn't mean we all do. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree regarding this article that the default thumb sizes should be used in the article body. As a hopeful compromise, I have enlarged the lead image to 300px, which is allowed as per WP:LAYIM. So, the lead provides a decent enhanced large view that brings out detail. I feel that the thumbs in the article body also provide sufficient views per being sized at the standard 220px. North America1000 07:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image caption incorrect

[edit]

An image is captioned as being from 1905, but the Dewey Monument in the center of the square (ground broken May 1901, completed 1903) is missing. The image can't be newer than May 1901, even if published in 1905. 2600:1700:A0E0:18E0:B84A:E921:32AE:2E40 (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Seasider53 (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post-COVID challenges

[edit]

@Coolcaesar: I have removed the content suggesting that "Union Square has been replaced in its traditional role as the leading retail hub for the larger San Francisco Bay Area by West San Jose." This claim is WP:OR, unsupported by the cited source. The SF Chronicle piece (accurately) contrasts Union Square's dismal performance with the boom at Valley Fair, but nowhere does it state that West San Jose has supplanted San Francisco for Bay Area retail overall. One could make the same contrast within SF between Union Square and Stonestown Galleria—and indeed, local media has done so ([1], [2]).

Additionally, I have some concerns about the portion of the "History" section that is focused on Union Square's post-2020 struggles. The history of the square stretches back to 1850, so we need to be careful to avoid a WP:RECENTISM bias. You suggested in your edit summary that my changes "appeared calculated to remove all negative information". This is obviously untrue; I maintained the final paragraph in the lede and details around the effect of the Macy's closure. My issue is that quoting John King verbatim four different times and including vacancy rates that are both (1) speculative and (2) changing rapidly, as the current version does, is not an encyclopedic approach. I'd be happy to collaborate on a version that addresses these deficiencies. Best, Conifer (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Union_Square,_San_Francisco&oldid=1217415569"