Talk:San Francisco/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

UN Charter

Wasn't the UN Charter actually signed in Marin County and not the actual city of San Francisco?66.126.191.98 19:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you have a reference? According to the United Nations Charter page on the UN website:

The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into force on 24 October 1945. The Statute of the International Court of Justice is an integral part of the Charter.

--Paul 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review Requested

I have requested Peer Review of this article to gather suggestions for improvement so it can pass Featured Article nomination the next time. Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/San Francisco, California/archive1 for the discussion. --Paul 18:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk from before May 2002

The following messages were originally at [[Talk:San Francisco, moved to [[Talk:San Francisco (disambiguation), and they are now in the page history of Talk:San Francisco, California, where they IMO belong as they are about the San Francisco article. Graham87 07:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Mission Delores should be replaced by Mission Dolores, but, though Dolores has more hits in Google, there are lots of references in Google to Mission Delores, so I hesitate to change this. I wat there in 1992 and I'd swear it was Dolores ("pains" in Spanish), but I'm not quite sure.


I believe you are correct. I will go ahead and change it.


What's the copyright status of that image? Did the submitter take the image? Is it from a public-domain source? Please clarify.

Yes, the image was taken from the top of my roof about two hours ago and when I uploaded it, I indicated that I gave up any rights to the image. sfmontyo

Thanks. In the case of images, the standard practice seems to be that you should add a caption under the image saying where the image came from and its copyright status (something like "Image taken by Joeseph Bloggs 2/3/45. Copyright assigned to Wikipedia by photographer"). It's a terrific image, BTW. --Robert Merkel

Old talk

Zoe i moved the photo as it was (and is) covering up the counties map and it was suggested to me last time i fixed that problem in another article to put the photo at the bottom - but "your mileage may vary" to borrow an American phrase.

-- Paul Melville Austin


Does the postponement of a baseball game really warrant mentioning in the 1989 earthquake part of the geography section? I'm not American, so might be underestimating the importance of a delayed sports game. -- Hotlorp

The significance was not of the delayed sports game, but several other matters:

  • Owing to the intense local interest in both an Oakland and San Francisco team playing, not blacked out on local TV, many people had left work early to go home or to sports bars or to after work get-togethers. Owing to this, freeway and bridge traffic was extreemly light. Without this, it is possible that a thousand people could have been killed by the Cypress Viaduct collapse.
  • This also demonstrates that even unlikely events can happen - U. C. California Memorial Stadium is bisected by the Hayward Fault - a far more dangerous fault than others in the area (see the article), and the most likely fault in the area to rupture in the near future with a major earthquake resulting. The Regents of the University have not properly addressed the danger posed by this stadium, which can contain up to 72,000 persons several times a year during football season, with occupation of portions likely to be turned into rubble.

re: General organization of articles pertaining to SF

The neighborhoods and landmarks probably should be standardized and organized so that they uniquely apply to San Francisco. Following the articles on neighborhoods in New York, article titles could be The Mission District, San Francisco, California instead of the current article The Mission, that contains information on the film The Mission above a sketch about The Mission District. A similar stub article exists for Pacific Heights.

The current article titles might be OK for landmarks such as Coit Tower, but other cities (Long Beach, California, for example) also have a Telegraph Hill, even if they aren't tourist spots .

Finally, as a former Richmond resident, who lumped the Sunset and the Richmond together? (!?!) If you're going to do that, why not just call it the "fog belt"?  :) Seriously, though, I was going to divide them; that's when I noticed the titles and figured we ought to address this question before I create new articles. Besides, we should differentiate The Richmond District, San Francisco, California from other Richmonds--15 in the United States alone!--ishu 20:34 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Point of clarification: Long Beach, California has a Signal Hill, California, not a Telegraph Hill (It's actually an independent city completely surrounded by the City of Long Beach. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 10:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I checked the New York article. The districts don't seem to be organized the way you've explained them to be (See Broadway). I don't think the article titles should be this long. If there is a conflict, a page break could be added making the disambiguation such as in Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (see bottom of page). The movie could be placed at The Mission (movie) and a diambiguation link added to The Mission. And please, unlump Richmond and Sunset. You are free to do so. Richmond is a disambiguation page already. The SF page could be at Richmond District (San Francisco). --Jiang 21:26 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
OK, I only checked Marble Hill, Manhattan, New York, which is distinct from Marble Hill, Missouri, but the New York section is equally lacking in consistency, with articles such as Broadway (almost certainly a future candidate for disambiguation) and Roosevelt Island (not quite like [NPS link]. Compare these to the articles titled Chelsea, Manhattan; Chinatown, Manhattan; Little Italy, Manhattan; and Murray Hill, Manhattan. I'd just prefer consistency across the board, no matter what the standard may be, except for truly unique names.
On a separate subject, Downtown is not only vague, it's not really San Francisco. There's the Financial District, South of Market, etc., maybe even the Embarcadero. I know, I know, I'll make the changes once we decide on the titles.--ishu 23:59 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Well, there seems to be only limited guidance from the Wiki City Names discussion. Some light, lots of heat. I'm with Jiang (above) and mav in the discussion: Richmond District (San Francisco).--ishu 02:34 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Do we really need two photos of the Golden Gate Bridge? It's a nice enough bridge and all, but the article is a little pic heavy, and the B&W one could easily be removed to free up some space. Gentgeen 19:19, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC) --- This article shows accidentally, that we need correct HTML code. All images on this site are without width and height attributes. These tags show the browser the needed space before the image is loaded. And loading might take time with a lot of images. Some browsers need the image sizes before displaying the page. ReneS 21:48, 2004 Jan 15 (UTC)


I changed the text about the the city being the county seat, as there is no distinction between the city and the county. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 18:29, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Okay, I seriously believe that the Golden Gate Bridge should be the firstmost image of this article. It is the most widely known symbol of it. No, it is not a "true" example of the city, but we have to serve the masses. The masses equate the bridge with the city. WhisperToMe 23:51, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The masses would be better served by us teaching them something - like what the city looks like. The fact that the city is more than the bridge is also an important thing to note. That is the exact same photo that is already at Golden Gate Bridge. The first photo in this article should be of the subject of the article - that subject is the city - not the bridge. --mav
Mav, those pics can come after the Golden Gate Bridge pic. Start with something familiar and then go into the less familiar territory. WhisperToMe 00:37, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No - start with a photo of the subject of the article. --mav
Its that the bridge is a symbol, Mav. The Statue of Liberty and the Manhattan Skyline symbolize New York. The Eiffel Tower symbolizes Paris. The Opera House is a symbol of Sydney. You cannot change popular culture on this. WhisperToMe 04:47, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You cannot change the fact that the subject of this article is the city - NOT the bridge! I am starting to understand Adam's frustration with you. If you can find an image of the bridge with the city behind it, then that would be OK. But an image of just the bridge is not at all acceptable. --mav
I generally agree. But the image layout at present needs work in general. -- Fennec 04:54, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Then how about having someone find an image of the bridge and the skyline? Do you know anyone in the S.F. area that can do this? WhisperToMe 05:00, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Because of the angles involved such an image would be hard to get from land without a zoom lens or even via boat on approach to the bridge. I've seen some great air photos showing the bridge with the city behind... I might be able to get a good photo from the top of the Marin Headlands, but I don't travel to the SF area much. Until then the skyline photo should stay. --mav
I'm not sure I understand the objection to the bridge, which is a well-known object in the city. "Not at all acceptable" seems an insupportable claim. --Brion 05:04, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The objection is having it as the first image. A photo of the city is much better there. --mav
The layout is fine now - Both skyline and the bridge are there. I like it. :) WhisperToMe 05:16, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I do plan on taking an all-inclusive photo. But the two image solution should work fine for now. --mav

I removed the following two external links from the main article, as they seemed more specifically related to articles about their subjects. --Zigger 11:11, 2004 Jun 3 (UTC)

  • Exploratorium
  • George Washington High School Online community for Washington High School alumni. Yearbooks on CD, class year pictures, live chat rooms, online discussion groups for each graduating class, top 40 chart for each year, school photo tour, and more. Non-commercial site.

Orange Magazine?

In the external links at the bottom of the page, the link to Orange Magazine seems rather gratuitous.

Conservative bashing

Does anyone else think the second half of this sentence is a little POV: "The 2003 mayoral election of Matt Gonzalez versus Gavin Newsom was notable in that it was between two liberal candidates, conservative candidates having had a hard time in the cosmopolitan and well-educated city."

It does seem to imply that you have to be poorly educated and provincial to be a conservative. However, noting that the last conservative politician to come out of SF was Leland Stanford (probibly not true, but I can't think of any) does seem to merrit a mention in the article. Gentgeen 20:50, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, James Rolph was a conservative Republican from SF, but his predecessor, C. C. Young was also a Republican, but rather liberal. RickK 21:04, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
Frank Jordan was a Democrat, but he was very much a conservative for SF. ffirehorse 21:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
George Christopher was a twice-elected Republican mayor, whose administration had a seriousness and competence about it that many San Franciscans dearly miss.--Paul 00:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Quentin Kopp? —Tamfang 01:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Homelessness

I added a section in history on the city's homeless problem and it was immediately reverted. Writing quality aside, isn't this a legitimate aspect of the city's history, seeing as it was a major issue in early 1990s elections?

(New commenter - I don't know who wrote the paragraph above.) I have qualms about including the following statements with no sourcing: Newsom also helped enact a strong new homeless policy, "Care Not Cash," in which the checks that homeless people previously recieved were replaced with vouchers for housing. This policy appears to be having some effect; demand for the vouchers is much weaker compared to the previous payment system. I think the first sentence, besides the POV-ish word "strong", is grossly oversimplified, since during the debates over Care Not Cash there were plausible assertions (which may since have been disproven, I don't know) that it would only affect a small subset of the homeless population and was therefore more of a public-relations effort. I don't know whether to trust the second statement at all, as it both lacks a source and is very vaguely worded (how was "demand" measured?). Not to mention that this leaves out the significant controversy over whether the housing the vouchers are for is actually available. Unless someone can inject some facts into this passage, I would like to replace it with something clearer and more neutral. Hob 06:13, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)

--Regardless of the specifics of these programs, the homelessness situation needs to be addressed at least somewhere in this article. This issue is far more relevant to SF than to any other U.S. city. --Jleon 15:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

--I tried to NPOV the homelessness comment. Please remember we're not here to insert our own personal views, we have to try to represent the various respectable hypotheses on the cause of homelessness, even the ones we personally disagree with. If you have a citation for the prevalence of specific causes of homelessness in San Francisco, please feel free to add it. Wevets 20:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Wevets

Now the homeless issue and related arguments take up an entire paragraph in the abbeviated history section, which clearly gives them too much emphasis. The best way to avoid POV arguments about homelessness is to omit arguments about the causes and solutions of the problem, which should be in an article on homelessness. I'll edit down the current material to make it as factual as possible, but trying to avoid anything that can cause an argument. --Paul 01:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sutro tower

I tried to look into this a little, and I couldn't come to a solid conclusion on the name of the peak where the tower is located. It's not at the main touristy site normally called Twin Peaks, but it's also not at the top of the peak that UCSF is built into, which is what is normally called Mount Sutro. Looking at the only topographic map I could find: http://nmviewogc.cr.usgs.gov/viewer.htm it's clear that the tower is on a peak about equidistant from the points marked as Twin Peaks and Mount Sutro. Conventional wisdom seems to be that this is also called Mount Sutro, and it was the site of the latter-day Sutro Mansion, but it would be great if anyone else has info on what to call this.

The Tower isn't at the tourist site known as Twin Peaks, but just to make things more confusing, the neighborhood around Twin Peaks is generally called by the same name. It is in that neighborhood that the tower stands. ffirehorse 05:04, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. Maybe it doesn't have a name? konky2000 15:25, 19 Aug 2004 (PST)

New City Picture?

OK, I added a new picture of the city to replace the picture that only showed the skyline. Others can disagree with my decision, but because so little of the city is actually high rise buildings, I thought that it would be good to include something that showed more of the city. Anyways, here is the old image, that in my opinion is too generic... konky2000 15:25, 19 Aug 2004 (PST)


Here is Konky's picture, which stood for a while but has just been replaced. I personally prefer Konky's image; I agree that the downtown skyline is not very representative of the actual city. --Chinasaur 19:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Yes. We need a new one, personally I like the Painted Ladies shown here, or the foggy Golden Gate bridge picture, its what you see sometimes on those things that people send to their families. --Old Guard 01:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary life

I have to say I think it's odd that an article on SF has not one mention of homosexual culture. Is this because no one cares to write it, or is it some taboo subject? I don't see why not. User:Ensiform

There is. See: The Castro and South of Market. WhisperToMe 21:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think this does need a mention in the main article; someone not familiar with SF wouldn't know to look in those neighborhood articles. And there's nothing more than a few sentences there anyway; I don't think just noting the presence of a "gay community" really conveys the diversity and magnitude of sexual subcultures in SF... Hob 06:19, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)

I agree with Hob. I don't think the lack of info up to this point has been a conscious oversight, but a paragraph (or more) about SF gay culture would add a lot to this article. (And how about a separate article as well?) ffirehorse 23:20, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Move History?

Would people support splitting out the detail in the History section into History of San Francisco, California? It's already pretty long, and deserves to be longer. Hob 06:23, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. --Mizchalmers 21:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. RickK 21:50, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

I also agree. Los Angeles has its own history section. Also, as Hob notes, a separate article would allow the history of SF to be expanded significantly. ffirehorse 23:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in Law and government section

The second paragraph in the Law and government section of the article states:

While most cities in California are General Law Cities, San Francisco in one of a few Charter Cities, theoretically giving the city's voters additional control over governmental structures and allowing the city to exercise considerable control over some lands not located in the city such as those associated with San Francisco International Airport and the Hetch Hetchy water and power system.

The inaccuracy is that a "few" chartered cities is actually 108 of 478 cities in California.

These are two sources I draw on for my confirmation of the number of chartered and general law cities:

  1. Facts At A Glance (2004)- League of California Cities[1]
  2. List of Chartered cities - Institute for Local Self Government[2]

--scupper 20:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Review of new section summaries needed

An anon had moved most of the bottom half (from Neighborhoods thru External links) of the article to a single 'more reading' page. To restore the section headers to the main article I cobbled together brief summaries for the Neighborhoods, Parks, Culture, and Famous San Franciscans sections. However, as I'm not all that familiar with SF, and felt pressed for time, I imagine they could all use some work. Also, ideally at least some of the subsections at Culture of San Francisco, California should be restored to the main article (summarized), as well. Niteowlneils 02:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are 21 missions in California, not 6

I tried to change it, but I encountered "there is a problem". I also tried to fix the link so it would direct to "California missions".

Looks like the edit actually took. Niteowlneils 22:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

new sub section

The San Diego wiki page has an attractions section, can we get one for SF?

Most of what would fall in that category is in the Culture section and its Main article, with some, depending on your definition are in Parks and its Main article. Niteowlneils 22:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Public Transportation NPOV Issue?

"San Francisco has the most extensive and best connected public transit system on the west coast and one of the most diverse in the country."

Is this statement NPOV? I guess "extensive" can be backed up, but "best?" --newkai 15:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Population density?

Could somebody else please check the population density? The value doesn't seem to be right. Thanks! --TdL 5 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)

What seems wrong? The math is right, and I believe the population and area numbers are correct. --Paul 03:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I think I did the numbers here. I used just the land area, instead of the total area, since including large amounts of the Pacific Ocean and SF Bay in the calculation didn't make much sense to me. Maybe that's what raised the question? Oh, and I used the population number from the infobox, rather than from the intro (which is undated), or the Demographics section (it's a more out-dated number than what's in the infobox). Niteowlneils 03:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Niteowlneils, after your correction the numbers make sense again. Before that, the calculation was wrong with any number, land or sea. Now, of course, the calculation ist correct for the numbers in the infobox, as it should be. If one should use more recent numbers is open for discussion, of course. --TdL 14:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

There was an earlier suggestion to move the history section to its own article. This was done, but then reverted, I think because no summary had been left behind. This needs to be re-implemented correctly. Also, the history section contains more detail than, and partially contradicts the main article on the subject, 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. This needs to be fixed as well. -- Beland 02:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This article needs some tight editing and a really serious haircut. A trivial example is the "Movies set in the city include..." paragraph. As of today "IMDB". Retrieved July 17, 2005.  lists 1,137 movies or TV series filmed in San Francisco. The need to duplicate that list here is not clear.
(I did make a start by fixing the magnitude difference for the 1906 San Francisco earthquake) -- Paul 01:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The New York City article provides a perfect example of organization and seriousness that the San Francisco article should emulate.

Expansion: Politics

We could actually write some about the local politics of the city, instead of referring people to outside sources. Major issues to cover:

  • Homelessness
  • Housing market
  • Gentrification
  • Dogs and children (dog attacks, reserved areas in public parks, leash laws, etc.)
  • Transportation
  • Ballot propositions (sales tax, minimum wage, etc.)
  • Electoral districts
  • Congressional and state representation
  • Etc.

I disagree with this suggestion. There is already entirely too much contemporary political journalism in the San Francisco article. The test of appropriate content should be to consider the topicality of the information. Would it be something you would expect to see in a magazine article or newspaper, or is it something you would expect in an encyclopedia?
For examples of content that I think could be moved elsewhere (or deleted) consider: "Craig Newmark founded the website Craigslist based in his San Francisco home. The success of Craigslist stands as a testament to the over-production of the dot-com era."; "In November of 2002, three off-duty police officers (one the son of the assistant chief) allegedly assaulted two civilians over a bag of steak fajitas. The resulting scandal was dubbed Fajitagate"; "San Francisco's history of innovative ordinances was seen again with the 2004 decision to ban outdoor smoking in all city-owned parks, plazas and public sports venues, amongst other outdoor areas."; "In 2005, San Francisco hosted the United Nations annual World Environment Day, the first time it has been held in the US. On June 5th, the mayors of 100 cities, including the mayor of San Francisco, signed an accord that made their cities more compliant with the Kyoto Protocol."; "A recent electoral innovation that was to be implemented for the November 2003 elections, but was not prepared in time, is the use of ranked preference voting, also known as instant runoff voting. In the Board of Supervisors race in November 2004, Instant Runoff Voting worked well, with many winners known on election night and all winners within a couple of days. Due to its implementation, there was no December runoff election." "One good place to read about San Francisco politics is at The Usual Suspects, at [3]." "[Image:Homeless-Church-Street-SF.jpg|thumb|250px|]On an otherwise upscale section of Church Street, a homeless person takes refuge in front of a dilapidated building. Chronic homelessness was a major issue in the 2003 mayoral campaign.]]"... and there are many other examples.
Some of this content should be deleted and some should be moved, along with the expansion suggested here, to a new article that might be titled: Contemporary Politics in San Francsico, California --Paul 23:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

History: Early Spanish Period

A user has written "Due to its distant location and internal problems that would lead to the decline of the Spanish Empire, the area became isolated, undeveloped, and sparsely populated." which I think is vague and hard to understand. What are the "internal problems?" and how did they lead to the "decline of the Spanish Empire?"

Sixties History Problem

The mention of San Francisco as a selected base for the Church of Satan perhaps throws an unwarranted pall on a decade in the city's history. Having this fact in the same paragraph as other '60s information seems a mistake. The "countercultural '60s" took innumerable forms, both in San Francisco and elsewhere - why cast it in a negative light?

Many, many creative things could be mentioned, and only a very few are (for instance, "the San Francisco Sound" in music). Since these other things are now lacking in the article, why leave the Satanist bit in?

If the '60s brought problems to the city, they were complex ones - cannot be encapsulated with the sort of mention someone has deemed "intriguing" in the Satanist reference; the youth influx is a sociological topic. Moreover, the era did not simply bring problems. M.C.

"7 by 7 miles"?

It might be appropriate to mention in the section on geography that colloquially people say that the overall shape of San Francisco is approximately a square of 7 by 7 miles, though (as noted in the facts box) the actual area is a bit less.

I didn't like the phrasing "the city proper is often reputed to be roughly a seven-mile square, and in fact is only slightly smaller," so changed it to "the city proper is roughly a seven-mile square". The size and shape of the city is factual, not reputed, and the actual area is within 5% of a 7x7 square, which I think is "roughly" accurate. I agree that it would be nice to find a way to add in the fact that not only is it 7x7, but people *say* it's 7x7, but I can't think of a way to do it that reads well. Kaleja 03:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion: "The city proper is roughly a seven-mile square, a fact which has become a colloquialism for the city." Singinius 22:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Correction: "The city proper is roughly a seven-mile square, a fact which has become a colloquialism referring to the city's dimensions." Singinius 23:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Editors note: San Francisco is actually 232 mi² in size, taking in vast stretches of the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay within the city limits (i.e. "city proper") - in fact, 80% of the city's area is water. Any reference to "7x7" should reflect this, e.g. "The land within the city limits is roughly a seven-mile square, a fact which has become a colloquialism referring to the city's shape." 198.181.182.2 23:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed and so edited. Singinius 23:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Settled on "The land within the city limits forms, roughly, a seven by seven mile square, a fact which has become a colloquialism referring to the city's shape." which I think is the most clear. Singinius 23:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone beat me to it but used comprises. Not sure that I agree with that instead of forms.
===Noun===
form (plural forms)
  1. The shape or visible structure of a thing or person.
  2. A thing that gives shape to other things as in a mold.
VS
===Transitive verb===
to comprise (third-person singular simple present comprises, present participle
comprising, simple past comprised, past participle comprised)
  1. To be made up of, to consist of
    The Union comprises fifty states.
  2. To include, to contain
    This box comprises all my belongings.
But perhaps I am just nit picking... Singinius 23:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Percentage of Homosexual People

Sorry if this in there. I didn't see it under the demographic thing. Given that the city has nationwide (if not worldwide) recognition as a center of homosexuals (which sounds like something Sean Hannity would say...), I think it'd make sense to include whatever data or facts there are regarding the actual numerical amount. I sincerely doubt that no one has ever tried to find out (even approximately) the gay/straight ratio of the city. I hope I don't come across as trying to "seperate" or "filter" them out. I shoulda' signed in.

Since this is not a census question, or something about which accurate data is gathered, any number is going to be a wild ass guess. --Paul 19:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Right. Thanks for setting us straight on that. --Jumbo 21:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Hm. How did we manage to say "homosexual", "wild ass", and "setting us straight" without offending ANYONE?
A little web surfing shows that '10% of the adult male population of SF is gay' is a statistic frequently thrown around, but I couldn't find anything worth citing. Kaleja 03:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Somebody added a Reuters quote, but I can't find it on their site. The reason I wanted to see it on thier site is because the quotes from other sites(like People's Daily) have misspellings.--Old Guard 01:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Gay Mecca

The following seems like unsubstantiated speculaton to me:

San Francisco's frontier spirit and wild and ribald character caused it to become known as a gay mecca beginning in the nineteenth century. This reputation was enforced greatly during World War II, when thousands of gay male soldiers spent time in the City, while en route to and from the Pacific theater.

Without some references, my inclination is to remove this. --Paul 19:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

British Intrest in the Bay (1841)

In reference to Paul H's removal of my edit, and the ask for a source, I found it in the Oxford History of the British Empire Volume III (The Nineteenth Century), Pg. 131, I lifted the quote word for word from it.

Being a publication from Oxford University, I'd expect this information to be fullproof in every way. Ajp100688 13:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't remove your edit, I only corrected the spelling of thalassocratic and asked for a reference. Can you add a footnote? I think your edit is a really neat piece of little-known SF history. --Paul 22:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Done and dusted, sorry for the misunderstanding I noticed it went missing for a few minutes and then saw your message, and assumed :(. Anyways all is good now Ajp100688 01:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Template

I notice that User:El C has moved the photograph from the top of the article. The standard practice is actually to include an appropriate lead photograph in the template, as seen in Los Angeles. The image is not quite as loud as El C indicates in his edit summary. --Jumbo 20:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Vote on general city/neighborhood naming conventions!

The basis for naming this page San Francisco, California instead of simply San Francisco and all other city articles according to a contrived [[City, State]] convention is a claim that this convention has been generally accepted. Yet there are important exceptions like New York City (rather than New York, New York) and no record of a vote on this issue. Shouldn't the name of this page be San Francisco since there is clearly no ambiguation issue (the San Francisco page is currently a redirect to this page anyway), and that is the universally common name used for the city (like New York City, not New York, New York, is for New York City). To settle this issue there is a vote on whether the [[City, State]] and [[Neighborhood, City, State]] conventions should apply even in cases where there is no ambiguity issue, such as in San Francisco. You would be voting essentially on whether the name of this page and all other unambiguous city and neighborhood should be something like San Francisco, California, New York, New York, Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco, California and Hollywood, Los Angeles, California according to "convention", or named according to the common name of the place, like San Francisco, New York City, Haight-Ashbury and Hollywood (but only when the name is unambiguous), like all other Wiki articles. Vote (and discuss futher) here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) --Serge 07:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Justin Herman - Redevelopment

The section on Redevelopment seems to imply that Justin Herman singlehandedly was responsible for the redevelopment mess -- I think there is a lot more to this story, as it was a movement started by the federal government in various cities during the time.

Companies Headquartered "near" SF

Come on now, you can't lump Silicon valley in completely with San Francsico, if you listed every significant company in the valley in this list you would have basically every tech company there. "Near" needs to be very narrowly defined and the rest of them should be moved to a "silicon Valley" section.

Religious affiliation

Is there any census data about religious affiliation? Gugganij 22:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving & summarizing History: take two

Apparently there's been an attempt to split off the History section as was earlier discussed, but it didn't happen because no summary was written to take its place. So, I -

  1. (re)started History of San Francisco, California, which currently contains nothing but a minimal intro paragraph; let's not do the copy-and-paste until we're about to start using this, so as to avoid missing any edits that happen in the meantime. After the move, I foresee lots of reorganization for this (I like how the L.A. article handles it).
  2. wrote a proposed summary, drastically shortened, at /Proposed History summary. If y'all tell me this looks basically acceptable, I'll paste it in and we can continue tweaking it in the main article. ←Hob 02:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No comments? If I haven't heard otherwise by tomorrow (4 days), I'm going to go ahead and make the move. ←Hob 04:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think your summary is well-written and covers the high points. Moving the History section out of the article will certainly shorten it, but a lot of the article is much weaker and there are lots of other places where cutting could profitably be carried out. I think the New York City article is excellent, and should be the template followed in cleaning up San Francisco. --Paul 23:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the article needs more work in many areas, but that's no reason not to move the History section out - so I did. So, people who want to clean up that section will have more room to do so, and the main article is down to 54K. - P.S., many folks here would bristle a little at the suggestion that New York is in any way a good model for "cleaning up San Francisco"... :) ←Hob 03:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sister Cities

New York City doesn't have a sister cities section in the article, and I can't see why San Franciso has one. What does this really tell us about San Franciso? I think this section should be removed as part of cleaning up and improving the quality of the San Francisco article. --Paul 02:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not see why SF's sister cities should not have mention on WP, because NYC does not? If the relationship is institutionalized and maintained in the real world, the information in WP should reflect this as well. The sister city concept embodies civil society relationships.TumblingDice 08:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

European?

While SF does show a significant European style, I will bet that most people would consider (most notably) Quebec City as the 'most European', with Montreal in second, and probably Boston in third. Hell, why not DC? It looks like Paris, after all. I'm deleting that statement, because it's POV and pointless (and probably not even accurate).

Doubled every ten days for more than a year?

The article says that San Francisco's population doubled every ten days for more than a year. That's 36 doublings at the minimum. That means the population of San Francisco supposedly increased by a factor of 68 billion.

Somehow I doubt that is true.

Agreed. This was added in the last few days along with a bunch of other fluffy non-encyclopedic material. The majority of it should probably be reverted. Have at it.--Paul 18:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the reversions, keeping some of the material that enhanced the article. (The doubling claim probably should have been every 60 days, given the reported population figures for 1849; still mighty impressive.) --Paul 00:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Single vote transfer method?

The article claims that san francisco uses a "Single vote transfer method" to elect officials. this is absolutely not true, only Cambridge, MA does that. San Francisco uses Instant Runoff Voting, which, whin in a way is a form of the Single Transferrable vote, is a distinct system altogether. Is "Single vote transfer method" what san francisco officially calls their system? because otherwise that needs to be changed - and re-wikified - to instant runoff voting.--CastAStone|(talk) 06:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

City-County vs. "Metropolitan Municipality"

For the second time, I just edited instances of "metropolitan municipality" to read "city-county". The latter is a more straightforward and exact term. The former is a vague and uncommon term, and it is suggestive of a composition of formerly independent jurisdictions like New York City or Philadelphia, or of a city that has consolidated with a surrounding county like Indianapolis or Jacksonville. San Francisco is not comparable to any of these amalgamations, and in the context of the Bay Area, it is hardly metropolitan in nature. (San Francisco covers but one 7x7-mile speck of a vast nine-county metropolitan region.) In constrast, it could be argued that nearby Fremont is more of a "metropolitan municipality" because it is an amalgamation of a number of formerly "independent" and distinct communities (Niles, Centerville, etc.) that joined together to form one municipality (but again, in the context of the Bay Area, Fremont, like San Francisco, covers a small area and is not "metropolitan" in nature, by the common usage of the word). San Francisco is a consolidated city-county - let's just call it what it is. Denvoran 20:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note, San Francisco is one of the most metropolitan cities around, if metropolitan is said to mean sophisticated, which it commonly is. Theshibboleth

You're confusing the word "metropolitan" with "cosmopolitan". San Francisco is indeed one of the most cosmopolitan cities around, because of its "sophistication"; however, again, the city is only a tiny part of a much larger metropolis and can therefore hardly be described as "metropolitan". Denvoran 23:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

S.F. County jails

I am willing to talk about San Francisco's County Jails. They are certainly "San Francisco's". They cost us real money. They are critical to us socially. As a matter of public policy, they are most definitely public. When we ignore them, bad things can happen (and tend to fester). With them in the public light, bad things are less likely to happen (for long, at least). Certainly not off topic by any/all of these measures. Also, the SF Sheriff is an elected official, and Michael Hennessey is an interesting character too. BruceHallman 02:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

European discovery of San Francisco Bay

The first European didn't 'arrive at' San Francisco Bay on Nov. 2, 1769, they only viewed it from a distance on that day, and were the first Europeans to 'see' the bay. Indeed, from my reading of the Portola journals, I am not sure that the expedition ever actually arrived at the bay that year, due to the extensive marsh land surrounding the bay at that time in history, though a scouting party did proceed as far north as present day Emeryville. I tried to reword the sentence to be accurate and p.c. but gave up. As written, it is correct to say that the European discovery occured that day. Is it really necessary to be 'politically correct', at the cost of creating inaccuracy with the facts? BruceHallman 19:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Tiny edit to "Parks" section.

I added a clause "a former military base" to the mention of The Presidio in the Parks section. This seems justified to me given that The Presidio was entirely and exclusively a military base for more than 150 years. The clause gives some small hint at the character of the park, which will remain colored by its military provenance for at least the next several decades, if not longer. (I.e. barracks and officers buildings remain, converted to new uses. Military monuments abound, decommissioned gun emplacements, underground magazines and materiel storage, etc.)

Anachron 07:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Night Life in San Francisco

Well this obviously needs to be expanded.

No it doesn't. It could be removed. This is an encyclopedia article, not a travel guide. There is, in fact, a Wikitravel site: http://wikitravel.org/en/San_Francisco which is perfect for this kind of information.--Paul 20:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Who has the "Wall Street of the West"?

In the article about Denver, below a picture of 17th street is a description of the street as the "Wall Street of the West". However, in this article about SF, the city's Montgomery Street is said to possess that description as well. Wikipedia has got to make a decision on who has the Western Wall Street. Back in the late '80s, in descriptions I read about both cities, I learned that each had a financial district with that nickname. So when the 49ers played the Broncos in the Super Bowl, I felt that whoever won the game gets bragging rights for the nickname. I guess Wikipedia should choose San Francisco. -Amit :-)

Denver? I heard them mentioned somewhere once.

Gays and San Francisco

In the introduction, there was "gay social movements". It´s been changed to "progressive social movements". Much more superficial and difuse...Why? Why is there no main topic about the subject...?

People editing this page seem like they don´t want to show the gay influence in the city to the readers. Like it was shameful, for them, off course... Like a homophobic conspirancy to hide it. Im thinking bout wrighting a whole topic about that soon and hope they dont erase...Don Leon 05/15/06

I think a section regarding the gay rights movement and the influence this has had (and continues to have) on the city would be great. And I say this as the person who changed the wording from gay to progressive. My goal was not to hide the fact that the city has been greatly influenced by its many GLBT residents, but merely to expand the statement. SF is famous in recent history for the beats, the hippies, the summer of love and certainly for the gay rights movement (more than any other "progressive social movement") to name just a few things. So I thought the phrase was too limiting for an opening paragraph about the City and I broadened it to progressive.
It should be noted that nothing about any sort of social movement was written in the opening until sometime over the last few weeks, so that statement and paragraph are not set in stone. The article can always be improved. --Richardsomething 01:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I think people are fearful to admit the gay social movement is happening in San Francisco. The San Francisco mayor had tried to legalize gay marriage but the Court brought it down. Like Massachusetts, legalize gay marriage in California is happening soon. Chrishomingtang 00:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

San Francisco Location Map

Why is the background of the map of California all of a sudden black? I thought it used to be white. -Physicq210 03:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I find it to be an eyesore.--Old Guard 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

WHY ARE THE ASIANS SINGLED OUT IN THE DEMOGRAPHICS MAP WHEN IT CLEARY SAYS THAT WHITE MAKES UP 50% AND THAT THE ASIANS ARE AT 30%?

Who cares where all the white people are? SF has a higher ratio of asians than most other big American cities. As far as minorities, most large cities have big latin and black populations.--Old Guard 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The location map is absolutely ugly. Would someone be willing to put a new one similar to Los Angeles' map? Un sogno modesto 21:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think most of the maps are generated via the Census Bureau site. I haven't done one before, but might have time later this week to give it a shot. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Government and Politics split

I think that the Government and Politics section takes up too much space in the article and diverts attention from other, more important sections of the article. Perhaps splitting it into a new article may solve the problem. Suggestions? --Physicq210 03:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the politics could be split off to the benefit of the San Francisco article. The problem with the politics section (and some of the government material) is that is it all contemporary and much more germane to a magazine article than an encyclopedia article.--Paul 20:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Support - Though it will need major cleanup before the split, it would do better if it had it's own article and a small paragraph on the San Francisco article. -Blackjack48 23:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

the TRUTH about OBEY & Shepard Fairey

People, please. Shepard Fairey is NOT a graffiti artist. He is a sticker bomber & wheatpaster. He has NEVER used spray paint as the main medium of his so-called phenomenology acts. Stop adding him to the WIKIPEDIA LIST of GRAFFITI artists. It is an insult to anyone on that list who has ever risked their life or freedom in the name of GRAFFITI. "Wildstyles", anyone ? Instead of continuously overlooking the facts, one of you should research the company FUCT™ & its creator Erik Brunetti. If anyone on this website wants to uncover the "truth", it will be well worth your time. I would even say that it would be a great contribution to the world of information. For starters, you can log on to this website: [[3]]. Good luck.

-Brighton58Brighton58 03:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of image gallery

While I certainly don't think that most articles need image galleries, I thought that the one here made more sense, given that any exceptionally large and heavily-photographed city would be hard to do justice with just a few pictures. I recall my print old edition of World Book having photo galleries for countries and particularly notable cities. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of the large, obtrusive gallery, some of the best images from the gallery could be used throughout the article? Un sogno modesto 21:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
That seems like a good solution. I checked a few comparable articles (New York City, Paris, and London) and saw that they don't use image galleries either (despite being highly-photographed cities). Currently, there are duplicate pics of cable cars, probably don't need both. Of those in the gallery, my top choices for inline inclusion in the article would be any of the skyline shots as well one or more of the following: view from twin peaks,downtown, TransAmerida,Union Sq. The again, I suppose you could argue that Transamerica Pyramid and Union_Square,_San_Francisco,_California have good pictures are on their respective pages. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
My gallery was too large for a long time, but I think images should have been removed instead of the gallery. I think galleries should also be installed in the above cities.--Old Guard 00:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
We could always have a gallery on a separate page. A good article shouldn't be image-heavy, but some locations demand a lot of images, otherwise the whole story is not being told. Readers don't get the full picture, so to speak. --Jumbo 01:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah! How subtle. I think we could have a smaller gallery here, with a link to the Commons with SF, or to a new Travel page with a gallery or something. I will put the old gallery back, but with only notable/good images.--Old Guard 19:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the article looks much cleaner without the unnecessary image gallery. This is an encyclopedia article not an on-line San Franciso picture book. Images should be illustrative, and the gallery is not. --Paul 20:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should hold a poll. (Or 4:1-ish going by the comments here) The only reason it isn't back is because I don't feel like sifting through the Commons again(a neat source of photos BTW), for now. The article would look much cleaner if someone hadn't moved the 1906 pan to the right, instead of deleting it. I still haven't tended to that either.--Old Guard 01:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sister cities

It says there are 15; there are 16 in the list. Which is correct? --Golbez 15:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither; it's 14. Every time I turn my back on that section it manages to grow... Melchoir 19:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
We just need to see proof of Paris being a sister city.--Old Guard 01:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
In case proof is still needed regarding Paris being a sister city check out this page on the SF City website: [4]. Scroll to the bottom and read the appropriately named "San Francisco's Sister Cities" section. The mayor of Paris also recently visited and there were several mentions in local papers regarding SF and Paris being sister cities. See one example here: [5]. --Richardsomething 06:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiSatellite Link Incorrect

The link to WikiSatellite does not funciton correctly. http://www.wikimapia.org/#y=37756058&x=-122441597&z=12&l=0&m=a Should be a much better URL but when trying to edit the external links section (via http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=San_Francisco%2C_California&action=edit&section=32) I was unable to find any reference to the WikiSatellite link. Perhaps someone more wikixperenced can figure it out. Singinius 22:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Did I just coin a new term here? "wikixperenced" I thought it made sense but when I went to do a search to see if it was defined anywhere I found no evidence of it's use. Singinius 22:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Attractions

I'm going to San Francisco in a month or two, and I'm wondering what kind of good attractions are in the city. I've been to Pier 39 and the Golden Gate Bridge, but is there something liek a big mall, museum, or science centre? Thanks!Ohyeh 18:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the San Francisco A-list:
Science
California Academy of Sciences
Exploratorium
Other Museums
De Young Museum
Palace of the Legion of Honor
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art
Asian Art Museum
Shopping
Union Square
--DaveOinSF 02:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Or read this -> [6] Have fun! (and a hooded sweatshirt ready!) --physicq210 03:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

history problem with Spain/Mexico

The article states "In the 1830s, the first city street plan was laid out by William Richardson, who also erected the first significant European built home. Richardson received a large Spanish land grant in Marin County and Richardson Bay to the north bears his name.

The area became Mexican upon Mexico's independence from Spain and fell into isolation."

This is either inaccurate, or should be reorganized. Mexico gained independence in 1821, yet the article states that William Richardson, who laid out the street plan in the 1830s received land from the Spaniards. Either place the fact that he received land from the Spaniards before 1821 or state that his land came from the Mexicans. Whichever is, in reality, true. Thank you.

Richardson received his grant from Mexico. This has been fixed, and a few other things in that section have been clarified. --Paul 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)