Talk:San Francisco

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)

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.

1. file:SanFrancisco from TwinPeaks dusk MC.jpg
2. file:Sf twinpeaks sunset.jpg
3. file:San Francisco (Evening).jpg

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)

Timeline of San Francisco

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

New image for California Street

I see you don't particularly like people just replacing old images, so just saying I've uploaded one that can be a replacement for the California St one. file:Califstreet_2a.jpg KennyOMG (talk) 07:20, 26 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 (/sæn frənˈsɪskoʊ/) 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)

I guess that would be fine; maybe the sentences about the economy and nicknames can be trimmed a bit. Epic Genius (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Nicknames

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)

Apparently it's actually thing: [1]--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Your parenthetical additions I'm pretty sure constitute original research, so I've reverted them. Onel5969 (talk) 20:31, 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,[2] 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)

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090327154059/http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rsrtp/documents/09Chapter4-CurrentServiceaccessible-fy08PublicDraftforMTAB10-2.pdf to http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rsrtp/documents/09Chapter4-CurrentServiceaccessible-fy08PublicDraftforMTAB10-2.pdf

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

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Photomontage

The lead image for this article is, frankly, terrible. I have already created the code for a new montage that depicts a panorama of the city, the Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, Alcatraz Island, the painted ladies, the city's famous cable cars, and the Palace of Fine Arts. Having just the one image of San Francisco and a small snippet of the Golden Gate Bridge is woefully insufficient. I have tried to change the image several times, I don't understand why this article seems to be resistant to a montage.Wealthgapfirefighter (talk) 19:37, 24 September 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 think one image works fine, although I would prefer a photo that captured the entire Golden Gate Bridge and skyline, like this one: http://d1vmp8zzttzftq.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/golden-gate-bridge-and-san-francisco-bay-area-city-skyline-panorama-1600x549.jpg . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourarticleneedsattention (talk • contribs) 01:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a fine shot. Who owns the rights to it? Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

After a quick search, I found that the photo is being sold by a site called stockfresh.com, see here: https://stockfresh.com/image/1621223/golden-gate-bridge-and-san-francisco-skyline. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is about photos of such origin.Yourarticleneedsattention (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)