The GNIS code in the box is for the city of San Francisco. The GNIS code for San Francisco County is 277302. [[User:DaveDixon|DaveDixon]] ([[User talk:DaveDixon|talk]]) 22:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The GNIS code in the box is for the city of San Francisco. The GNIS code for San Francisco County is 277302. [[User:DaveDixon|DaveDixon]] ([[User talk:DaveDixon|talk]]) 22:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
== Average household income ==
Where is the support for the statement that "''the average San Francisco household earned over $280,000''?" It is not in the provided citation and it's contradicted elsewhere in the article by household income figures that are far, far less. [[User:Fluous|Fluous]] ([[User talk:Fluous|talk]]) 16:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
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).
Source 18 is irrelevant
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)
Lead image
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: 18 January 2022).
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: 18 January 2022).
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)[reply]
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: 18 January 2022).
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."
Tdibell (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Thomas P. DiBell Tdibell (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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: 18 January 2022).
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
Why is there a ban on editing until 2019. That makes it at least 2 years if not more. OK, you don't want me to share expertise? Secret Agent 0087 (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2017
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
It's been more than two years since this issue has been brought up and I'm bringing it up again. The composition in the lead image is a fantastic idea, but in reality it doesn't really capture San Francisco in a way that makes it worthy of leading the article.
For starters, in an article about San Francisco, the Golden Gate Bridge is in the forefront and the city skyline is barely visible (taking up 15% of the picture if that).
Second of all, about 30% of the image is empty space on the bottom, making the smallness of the city (the supposed focal point) even more glaring.
Lastly, and this is something that has changed since the discussion two years ago, the city skyline has changed significantly since this picture was taken, so if a skyline is to be in the header image, it needs to be up-to-date.
I have read some comments deriding the montage as being cluttered. On the contrary, the montage is a way to visualize a place that is difficult to capture in a single image. It is also more visually pleasing to look, up close, at important parts of a city rather than looking at it all from a distance (and seeing nothing). Because the current image offers very little, the vast majority of it is empty space.
The point of the lead image is to identify the place, not to "visualize a place that is difficult to capture in a single image." The Golden Gate Bridge instantly identifies San Francisco more than any other landmark in the world. Shoving a bunch of tiny photos in the beginning of the article (like where does that random lion come from?) visually detracts from the article. Space and simplicity in a single image has its own value, and it has its positive contributions in the infobox. There is no need to crowd information in every nook and cranny. No different arguments from before, no addressing of issues raised before, no montage. --Kurykh (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for saying that none of those responses are satisfactory. A montage is hardly a crowding of information if done properly, particularly if five or less images are chosen. I agree that the simplicity of a single image has its own value, but you've completely ignored all of the problems with this particular lead image:
This image identifies the Golden Gate strait, and would be a suitable lead image for that article, but hardly suitable for the city of San Francisco.
You can barely even see the city or any of its constituent parts aside from the bridge. Even the bridge itself only occupies a mere 30% of the frame. The bridge as a symbol works well, but not if the city is completely sidelined. The focal point, which should be the city of San Francisco, is a white smudge that is barely discernable.
Half of the image is empty space, Pacific Ocean.
And lastly, this image is outdated. Even if you can barely see the skyline as it is, that skyline is outdated.
This montage can be re-done. I agree that the Chinatown lion perhaps isn't the best image to choose there; the Golden Gate Bridge, Painted Ladies, Transamerica, cable car, and City Hall are good enough. But a good montage is far more aesthetically pleasing, visually informative, and comprehensive than a single image, particularly this image whose focal point is that of the Golden Gate strait rather than the city of San Francisco.
Other editors have brought up issues with the quality of this lead image before, but it has never been fully discussed as the topic always veers back towards montages. The montage is merely being presented as an alternative to a current lead image that wouldn't be deserving of a lead image spot for the Golden Gate Bridge article, much less for San Francisco. "An image of a white-tailed eagle is useless if the bird appears as a speck in the sky," similarly, this image of San Francisco appears as a small white smudge in the corner and the bridge too far away to be representative of either, or both. --haha169 (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No reasonable reader is going to see the Golden Gate Bridge in an infobox titled "San Francisco" in an article titled "San Francisco" and think that it's about the Golden Gate Strait. Remember that the Golden Gate Bridge is part of the city of San Francisco itself, not some disconnected structure in the middle of nowhere. You are really grasping for straws here, just like the montage advocates of years past. That's why MOS:IRELEV doesn't apply here. We interpret policies and guidelines reasonably, not by stretching them to reach absurd conclusions.
You also contradict yourself: you want to be comprehensive, but have only five images or fewer in your montages (never mind they're all in one quadrant of the city). Comprehensive for tourists? We're not a travel guide.
More importantly, you're comparing an abstract concept of montages to the very real image we have up on top right now, which is an apples-to-oranges comparison. My main contention is that singular images in general are superior to all montages because montages by definition are multiple images in one place, which makes the top of the infobox busy no matter how you slice it or dice it. That busyness is what makes it feel cluttery and therefore bad for this article's purposes. You want a different lead image? Sure, we can discuss that. But a montage would make things worse. --Kurykh (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am hesitant to put in the work of creating a better montage to advocate for before guarantees that it would be used, hence using abstract concept of montages as an alternative. Montages are, by definition, more comprehensive than a single image. Further, an image leading with a city's landmarks does not make it a travel guide in and of itself, no matter what you say.
But I digress, my main point with starting this conversation is that the current lead image is simply not good. If a single lead image must be used, I would recommend one of the following three four:
File:SF_From_Marin_Highlands3.jpg, which is taken from the same angle and is marginally better: it has better framing, the Golden Gate Bridge is in greater focus, and the identifying features of the San Francisco cityscape is more clear. There is less empty space, but it is unfortunately even more outdated than the current one and the left tower is just too close to the edge of the frame.
While I don't hate the symbolism of having the GGB in the image, they either focus too much on the GGB rather than the city in its entirety, or do a bad job of showing both. File:San Francisco skyline from Coit Tower.jpg does a good job of showing the city's skyline as well as the lower-rise neighborhoods around the Financial district, but unfortunately misses out the GGB as an instantly recognizable symbol.
The Painted Ladies (File:San Francisco DSC09797.JPG) are another instantly recognizable San Francisco symbol, much like the GGB, but its location relative to the skyline makes it easier to take a photo with better composition and framing.
Despite my concerns with each of the alternatives, I personally believe that each of the four that I presented above is better than the current image, whose shortcomings I have already detailed at length. --haha169 (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That montage was previously rejected after multiple discussions archived here. My position back then is still the same: that the infobox text should not be pushed farther down by the extended verticality of the montage, and that the images can be presented with better clarity and context if they are separated and distributed throughout the article. Binksternet (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the viewpoint of those against the montage. However, as I've mentioned above, the current lead image does a poor job representing the topic and identifying San Francisco. If a single image must be used,File:SF_From_Marin_Highlands3.jpg is taken from the same angle and does a better framing job (although more outdated); the Golden Gate Bridge is in greater focus, and the identifying features of the San Francisco cityscape is more clear, whereas the current lead image is both unfocused (lots of empty space and no focal point) and unclear (the city is an undiscernable white blob occupying a small portion on the upper left of the frame). --haha169 (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The current version with the image of the bridge with the city in the background does a great job of representing the topic and identifying San Francisco. In fact, I'd go so far as to say, if you asked people who have visited San Francisco to describe what an ideal image for a travel poster of the city would look like, many of them would describe something pretty much like this. San Francisco is a striking city with many beautiful views; people recall the "crookedest street", the cable cars, Chinatown, Telegraph Hill, and many other scenes; but there is none so iconic and emblematic of the City by the Bay as a view of the Golden Gate Bridge with the city in the background. The only way I can imagine improving upon it, would be an image showing the exact same view, except with a few tendrils of the famous San Francisco fog blowing in under the bridge, or over the tops of the bridge towers, without obscuring the rest of the image. Mathglot (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. San Francisco is more than just the bridge. Of course, one should feature the braidge in the montage, even primarily. it MUST also feature the skyline. But definitely include more than just that. Almost every city on Wikipedia has a montage, why not SF? Plus, the current pic is low-res and ugly. I like the montage up there, it has the bridge, painted ladies, and skyline (expcet foe the lion). I would simply ake the lion out and make painted ladies bigger.
I think New York City does an excellent job, we should do the same for SF. ALso, I am not aware of any other major city that does not have a montage. Again, the bridge is great, but there'e more to San Francisco that JUST the bridge. City Hall, Painted Ladies, and the Skyline are all very identifieable. Eccekevin (talk) 06:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agreed, the german SF page has a nice picture, how about we use that one? Edit: here is the link to said image. Foxingkat (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ah, good point about the unnecessary download... II | (t - c) 22:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2018
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Can we change the overview picture to [1] this? Foxingkat (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2018
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)[reply]
Errors in "Government of San Francisco" article, "San Francisco plague of 1900 - 1904" section
You need to raise this on that article's talk page and be more specific as to what those errors are. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lead Image Update
I like the lead image, but this page could use a montage of notable SF images as well like most big city pages. PerhapsXarb (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the archived discussions about this same question. All of the discussions ended with no consensus for a montage. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a montage to showcase more than just the Golden Gate bridge. This is a page about the city, not the bridge. Eccekevin (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Past responses to your observation centered around the difficulty of identifying which particular photos should be assembled to represent the city, since there are so many different aspects of it, too many for a practical montage. The single image of the city as seen at a distance through the Golden Gate Bridge prevents the problem of a montage missing some essential part of San Francisco. And a montage makes each selected image appear much smaller than if it was placed in the article body. Finally, the editors who are interested in the topic appear to be satisfied that San Francisco's article bucks the trend for montages. The city is something different than normal, and proud of it. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that montage with is really bad. If anyone cares, how I would do it, as someone who has been around SF quite a lot, is have:
-The current image, large at the top, and others smaller below that, in no particular order
Obviously this is not the whole of San Francisco. Images of the Painted Ladies, Haight-Ashbury, Twin Peaks, Japantown, the Mission, and BART would be cool, but cluttered all together. I think my selection gives a good overview. NYC only has one non-Manhattan pic in its montage for Pete's sake. Like in Philadelphia's image, the montage does not need to be its own separate file. PerhapsXarb (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those are really good choices and pictures. Really showcases the richness of San Francisco. I approve of your efforts Eccekevin (talk) 06:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one in the past ten years or so has ever given a good reason why a montage is better than a single image, and none has been presented now. Instead, there has been an endless parade of editors predictably repeating things about conformity and "not just about the bridge" (yes we know, that's why the article and infobox are titled "San Francisco," now stop treating readers like idiots), never mind that people here have heard them all before and have rejected them again and again and again. If people could divert their attention to improving other aspects of the article, that would be great. --Kurykh (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has given a good reason why a single image is better. So some people reject, some people agree, some people obstruct. OK, I'm about to make history. First good reason in ten years coming up: A montage helps the reader get a broad sense of a city, showing them some specifically chosen things that are commonly identified and related to in reference to that city. Having just one image, especially one barely showcasing the city, is a bit inadequate. No, San Francisco can't be summed up in five images... I think the rest of the article is probably good. And this pic is good in a montage too. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3_Cable_Car_on_Hyde_St_with_Alcatraz,_SF,_CA,_jjron_25.03.2012.jpgPerhapsXarb (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(fix indent of my first comment; it's intended to respond to the original post) That's...not a newly conceived reason at all, let alone a good reason (no, seriously, look up and you'll see that it has already been said). And I'll give the rejoinder that's also in the thread from before: the image in the infobox is not intended to give "a broad sense of a city" and should not be. It should be a snapshot that instantly identifies San Francisco, which it currently does. No one in their right mind sees the Golden Gate Bridge and thinks Oakland or ravioli or Genghis Khan. Infoboxes in articles about people don't have montages that give "a broad sense of a person's life"; infoboxes in articles about weather phenomena typically don't have montages that give "a broad sense of what they look like"; so infoboxes about cities don't need montages. This article withstood a serial montagist's onslaught of terribleness years ago, and that terribleness should stay banished. --Kurykh (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I have no objection to choosing a different single image. It's the montage concept that's bad, has been bad, and will continue to be bad. --Kurykh (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not violently against having a montage, but what the present image shows better than any montage I've seen is the unusually peninsular geography of San Francisco. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's quite an iconic viewpoint. That's why it would be the top, largest, and most prominent image in my proposed montage! Would that get you thinking about considering the prospect of thinking about getting on board? PerhapsXarb (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PerhapsXarb, you said "Nobody has given a good reason why a single image is better", but I have already said that single images, presented by themselves, are larger. Larger images give more detail and a fuller experience to the viewer. A montage reduces the size of each. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are sometimes a bit smaller, but not necessarily. Since the overall montage is generally quite larger than a single image, they are sometimes bigger– look at Paris's page, where the largest photo in the montage is bigger than San Francisco's lone image! Plus, the photo is taken from so far away that it is impossible to see the city in close detail. Anyway, if I want to see a montage photo close up, I click the image, then zoom in more if necessary. Most people don't care that much though; the image should be "a snapshot that instantly identifies" the city from a glance. But why is one instantly recognizable image more important than others?
With regards to the montage being "bad, has been bad, and will continue to be bad", Wikipedia is not a platform for ideological warfare. And looking at the vast majority of city pages, it appears that perspective is not commonly accepted. PerhapsXarb (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine for you to like the montage concept, but so far this article has not jumped on the montage band wagon. It's not a requirement that San Francisco's infobox must look like that of other big cities. I prefer a conceptual photo at the top, so that the reader can be drawn in to peruse the whole article, without getting distracted. Binksternet (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would think it is more distracting to have so many images throughout the body of the article. I´m not sure how a montage is distracting. Having key images in one place is quite efficient in my view, letting a viewer get a sense of the article without having to search through the whole page (most Wikipedia visitors don´t have time for that). Someone said the picture isn´t meant as an overview, but I disagree. PerhapsXarb (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GNIS code is only for the city
The GNIS code in the box is for the city of San Francisco. The GNIS code for San Francisco County is 277302. DaveDixon (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Average household income
Where is the support for the statement that "the average San Francisco household earned over $280,000?" It is not in the provided citation and it's contradicted elsewhere in the article by household income figures that are far, far less. Fluous (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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).
.jpg)
Not done. 
![[1]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/San_Francisco_California_Montage.jpg/280px-San_Francisco_California_Montage.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
