Talk:San Francisco

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ngkhanh (article contribs).

SF Being *the* Political, Cultural, and Economic Center of NorCal

I think this is too much of a sweeping statement for the lede, as unlike other major metro regions like New York or DC, the Bay Area is disparate and has three major cities, each of which could be considered their own cultural, political and financial centers. Palo Alto rivals SF for concentration of white-shoe law firms, banks, and arguably bests SF for venture capital. Oakland's (and Berkeley's for that matter) cultural and dining attractions rival SF's. Oakland is the center of the African-American community in the region, not SF. The Hispanic, Asian, indigenous communities also aren't centered in SF (or really in any particular Bay Area city). Silicon Valley contains most of the Fortune 500 companies in the Bay Area.

Two of the major news affiliates serving the region (Fox and NBC) are stationed in Oakland and San Jose, respectively. Two of the Bay Area's best universities (Stanford and Berkeley) are closer to San Jose and Oakland than they are to SF. Commute patterns in the Bay also aren't SF-centric, as job centers are scattered all over the region. San Francisco contains less than one-tenth of NorCal's population proper, and San Jose is larger than it both in area and size. Oakland is the major port city for the region, not SF.

Also the "NorCal" statement is just far too encompassing. Sacramento is some 87 miles away from SF, is the cultural/political/financial center of its metro region in its own right and whose residents would probably scoff at the notion that SF is the epicenter for their region. NorCal also encompasses Fresno and Modesto (Fresno being 150+ miles away from the Bay), which are entirely separate areas in the Central Valley that don't center their commute patterns around SF and are very much independent economically, politically, and culturally from the Bay Area.

I think it would make most sense to call SF a major political, economic and financial center of NorCal. But to call it "the" stretches that very nebulous and controversial concept way too far, and discounts other cities like San Jose, Oakland, Fresno, Sacramento that are centers for their metro areas in their own right. I would appreciate further input on this suggested change to see if a consensus can be reached. If there is no opposition, I will make that change in a week. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

No objections within 7 days, so I'm going to go ahead and change the lede based on WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. This is now the new consensus. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Just saw this. Reluctantly concur. Historically, SF was the primary cultural, political, and financial center of NorCal as late as the 1980s, but that is definitely no longer the case. Another factor has been the failure to achieve regional amalgamation despite four major attempts. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

SF definitely is the center of the financial, commercial, and cultural center of NorCal. It has the highest GDP, most tourists, the most cultural venues, and is by far more famous internationally than any city in northern California. It is also the political center, given the prominence of SF politics on a nation-wide scale. Pelosi and Newsome just two recent examples. It is undoubtedly the financial center of NorCal, especially since it is the second financial hub in the entire country other than NYC. So while it might not be the educational or population center, it definitely is the commercial and financial center. Regarding commercial, SF has a GDP of $183.2billion, more than the entirety of the Santa Clara county combined which includes San Jose (despite SF having half the population). And obviously, it is much more commercially important than Sacramento or any other city. 'Cultural' is more difficult to define, but the prominence of SF is also underscored by the fact it here receives more than double the Wikipedia traffic than any other NorCal city. This is a big change (that lede has been there for a long time), so I suggest a RFC before changing it. Eccekevin (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This is bullshit. Bring reliable sources for either position and gain consensus before restoring. Until this dispute is settled and backed by WP:RS without WP:SYN, it's just opinion and has no place in an encyclopedia. Toddst1 (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

San Francisco was ranked 8th in the world and 2nd in the United States on the Global Financial Centres Index as of March 2020. As of 2016, the San Francisco metropolitan area had the highest GDP per capita, labor productivity, and household income levels in the OECD.. It is widely seen as the financial capital of the western USA, and second in the county to NYC. So I do not see why 'financial center of NorCal' could be disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eccekevin (talk • contribs) 01:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

You are attempting WP:SYN. Toddst1 (talk) 01:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Not the case at all. I am just showing how such a description cannot be deemed inaccurate.Eccekevin (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Since you're not WP:HEARING the basics as they are pointed out, let me boil it down to the requirement: you need provide one or more reliable sources that explicitly supports the statement you wish to add. Toddst1 (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Toddst1 and Coolcaesar. Toddst did the right thing by removing the disputed material until a better consensus can be found. To respond to Eccekevin (who cannot call an RfC on their unilateral power and clearly had 7 days to object, in which they did nothing), political power is not measured by statewide politicians coming out of a city. By that logic, Bakersfield should be the political capital of Northern California since House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy hails from there. There are more State Senate and Assembly surrounding SF than there are within SF itself. San Francisco has a single U.S. House district out of the dozen in the region. San Jose has four, for comparison.

When you are discussing GDP, you are referring to the "SF Metro"-- which is the broader accumulated wealth of the region, not the city. The region contains dozens of other cities, one of which is larger than SF. Then there's the problem of Fresno, Modesto, and Sacramento, which you conveniently left out. Northern California as a region is not just the Bay Area-- it is the entire Central Valley and all areas north of Sacramento as well. And I honestly don't think anyone here could say that San Francisco is the "economic center" for the Central Valley, Sacramento, or regions like Eureka and Redding.

And lastly, website traffic is not a reasonable measure used to determine the "cultural center" of anything. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Refs

References

Here's the only source I need to disprove the unreasonably narrow metric used by Eccekevin to call SF the "financial capital of NorCal" above: https://localnewsmatters.org/2019/12/31/gdp-breakdown-economic-growth-in-the-bay-area/. This source lists GDP by Bay Area county from 2019.

*1. Santa Clara County — $316.5 billion

*2. San Francisco — $162.5 billion

*3. Alameda County — $130.7 billion

*4. San Mateo County — $105.0 billion

*5. Contra Costa County — $77.5 billion

*6. Sonoma County — $28.6 billion

*7. Solano County — $23.3 billion

*8. Marin County — $20.9 billion

*9. Napa County — $10.0 billion

Out of an $875 billion total GDP for the 9-county Bay Area, SF makes up about 1/8 of that. And it's only the second largest GDP of any Bay Area county behind Santa Clara County. Not surprising, as most Fortune 500 companies in the Bay are headquartered in Silicon Valley, not San Francisco. This is unlike any other major metro centered on a single city. GDP is also not inclusive of so many other economic drivers. So even based on that flawed GDP metric, you cannot reasonably call SF the economic center of the Bay Area, let alone Northern California. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Concur. Also keep in mind that SF in the 80s was the birthplace of iconic international fashion brands like the Gap (which was founded in 1969 but really hit its stride in the 1980s), Banana Republic, and Esprit, as well as famous bands like Starship. Nothing like that occurred in the 2000s or 2010s; all the hottest fashion brands and music trends came out of LA. --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

"the center" vs "a center" vs nothing

While User:EndlessCoffee54 changed the lede sentence from "the cultural, commercial, and financial center of Northern California" to "a cultural, commercial, and financial center of Northern California" (emphasis mine), User:Toddst1 has gone further and removed this phrase entirely, so that the article opens by merely calling San Francisco the 16th biggest city in the United States. This seems jarring and fails to open with meaningful context, imho. How about at least putting back the language that it's a center? Graue (talk) 07:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd be okay with this. It's a completely accurate statement, in my view at least, to say that SF is a major commercial, cultural, and financial center of NorCal. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Concur with User:Graue and User:EndlessCoffee54 on this point. It is still important, but not the only one. --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree that some language pointing to San Francisco being a center could well be restored. Adding to what has already been mentioned: the state supreme court sits in San Francisco, not Sacramento; the relevant federal district and appeals courts are headquartered in the city; and San Francisco is the location of one of only three US mints. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

That is all true; but the BART headquarters is in Oakland, as is the headquarters of the entire UC system. Caltrain's headquarters is in San Carlos. Regional governance is nowhere near centralized enough to call SF "the" center, but it is definitely "a" center (and a major one). EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Seeing no disagreement with "a[...] center of Northern California," I've restored said phrasing. Happy New Year everyone. Graue (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Montage

I see that it has been a few years since this issue has been brought up so I believe it should be brought up again. San Francisco is one of the only, if not the only, major American city without a montage for the lead image. The main argument against a montage as seen from the discussion three years ago is that it would be difficult to find 7-8 that well represent a city so diverse as San Francisco. I believe this is wrong because if cities like New York, London, Chicago, along with nearly every major city is able to do this than San Francisco will be able to as well. Please check the revision history from a few days ago where I created a montage which I believe well encapsulates San Francisco. There was also a revision by another user changing one image I selected to an image of Chinatown which is a choice I agree with. It's well time that San Francisco joins the standard of major cities with a photo montage as the lead image and I hope we can now get the necessary consensus to do so. Yankees999 (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Yankees999: Is there a consensus or guideline someplace that major cities need a montage in their infobox? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: It's the clear standard for major cities. Of the top 30 American cities by population San Francisco is the only one lacking a photo montage.

Yankees999 (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We've had several discussions going back to 2008, probably more discussions on this than on what nicknames to include (see this 2008 discussion; this from 2010; 3 discussions almost in a row from 2012 (2) and 2013; and 2 2018 discussions, one after another). Previously established consensus doesn't have an expiration date. The single images that we've had usually do a better job of showing San Francisco's peculiar peninsular geography than a montage would. While I wouldn't abandon all hope if a montage were decided on, I also don't think it's necessary to have one just because other cities do, even if they are every bit as magnificent as San Francisco. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't think the goal should be to just illustrate merely the peninsular geography of the city. NYC also has a peninsular geography. But just like NYC, SF has a lot more to it, from its distinct architecture, its hills, its famous trolley cers, Alcatraz, the painted ladies, the LGBT culture, Chinatown etc... Since all of these are tied into the image of the city, I think a montage would better give the reader a first impression of it. The current picture can be the top imageEccekevin (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC) of the montage.

Moreover, the consensus of editors who wrote MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE agreed that "The less information it contains", the more effectively it conveys information in the article. I'm tired of 10-mile-long infoboxes that clog the right side of the article, and editors who add photos to a collage instead of including them in the article next to the text that describes the photo. I also think collages are decorative, per MOS:IMAGES, and do little to improve the article. The photo of the bridge currently in the infobox of this article is just fine. It shows San Francisco well without making the infobox look like the cover of a travel guide. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

That's fair. I didn't mean to imply that previously established consensus had an expiration date but rather that it could be brought up again. I still believe the photo used now can still be used to show San Francisco's peninsular geography as the top image of a montage and that adding a few other photos would not clutter the infobox. Yankees999 (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

There should be a montage. San Francisco is more than just the Golden Gate bridge.Eccekevin (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I concur with User:Dhtwiki and User:Magnolia677 that montages are inappropriate for WP. They are a violation of WP policies especially WP:NOT. WP is "not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files." It's also not a directory and it's not an indiscriminate collection of information. I would support the immediate purging of montages from infoboxes in all U.S. city articles. If those images can be moved into article text as relevant to various paragraphs, that's fine; otherwise, pull them out. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Montages are horrible. Every montage is a case of reduced size for the involved images. I think it's better to have a nice, clear image shown at the largest size possible.

As for montages in infoboxes, they were banned from people-related infoboxes in 2016, the discussion visible at "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members". Two subsequent RfCs confirmed the ban. An example of the offending type of montage can be seen in the history of the Man article which had 20 images of "Man" arrayed in a montage.

My stance hasn't changed one iota. I am not in favor of a montage here. Binksternet (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

A city is not a group of humans. A city is perfect for a montage that highlights its most remarkable features or landmarks. The current picture only highlights the golden gate bridge with a burry skyline in the back. San Francisco is so much more than just a bridge. Eccekevin (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

San Francisco is more than a montage, too. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but. montage is more representative than one picture of the Golden Gate bridge. Eccekevin (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I do agree that if we cannot get the consensus for a montage we should at least change the current image. I agree it is very blurry and not representative at all. Yankees999 (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The present image has its flaws but also its charms. For one thing, it was specially provided for us by an editor, when a previous image didn't show the gigantic sex-toy-shaped Salesforce Tower looming over the skyline, whose inclusion was considered important and was incontrovertibly encyclopedic. Dhtwiki (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Featured article review

This article no longer meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. There are many unsourced statements, in addition to self-published sources and potentially dated statements. The article is lengthy. Should the unsourced parts be cut? DrKay (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree image spam easy to fix ...but sourcing is a bigger problem.--Moxy- 15:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This article has extreme MOS:SANDWICHing throughout, considerable dated text, uncited text, and short choppy sections. A top-to-bottom rewrite is needed, or the article should be sumbitted to WP:Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Montage vs single blurry picture

An editor added a nice montage, which looks much better, presents a more complete picture of the features of the city, and is the standard for city pages at this point. I think a good montage should be used to represent San Francisco, since the city is more than just the Golden Gate Bridge. The current picture (although it's blurry and doesn't really give a good view of the city) can be maintained, if the editors are attached to it. The montage would simply add more pictures to it, to give a better representation to the city. SF is the only large city in the US who's page doesn't have one, and I think it should be adapted to the rest because it looks better.(talk • contribs)

Current image

I still think montages are a pox on city articles. Every image in the montage is reduced in size, rendering it more difficult to see. If an image is worth having, it's worth having at its largest practical size. Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

But in this case the current image would remain, and in the same size. A montage like such would add, without removing anything.Eccekevin (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the montage shown has some beautiful and compelling images, but I also don't require a montage for the infobox and think that because everyone else does it (which may well be true) is not a strong argument. Besides, the blurry part of our current, single image is the foreground flowers, not the city. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC) (edited 11:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC))

My argument isn't that it should be done cause other cities do. My argument is that it should be done because it's more informative and more compelling (and that's incidentally why all other pages do it). And why are we even showing the flowers? This page is about San Francisco, not the flora of the Marin Headlands or the Golden Gate bridge. Plus, the view of the skyline is incredibly low quality and choppy in this picture. Eccekevin (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The flowers just happened to be there when the picture was provided. They do add a classically contrasting color to enliven the image and probably can be seen as marking the graves of all the dead-end attempts to change the image. I don't know what you mean by "choppy". Some low points are overlaid by haze that's more evident in the high-res version. I don't know how more crystal clear you can get, though. If it's a bad photo, why include it in the new montage? Dhtwiki (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

As a compromise, because some editors feel strongly about this photo being the perfect representation of SF. By keeping it, and including more of the city, we lose nothing and gain a better picture of the page as a whole. Eccekevin (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the single picture. Montages bloat the infobox, and take forever to load on a handheld. Moreover, one of the photos in the montage--of the Palace of Fine Arts--is too artsy and "decorative". Magnolia677 (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The artsy picture also shows the decorative elements of the building to good effect. That is, it's encyclopedic, even if dramatically lit. I think all the pictures of the montage are remarkable, and the one with city hall in the foreground is panoramic enough to be a possible replacement for the one we have, even if it doesn't show Salesforce Tower, if that were ever the consensus. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

And does the montage really need two photos of the bridge? This photo shows the water, the bridge, and the Marin Headlands--none of which are located in San Francisco. The only part of the photo located in San Francisco are the rocks on the right. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)