Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/San Francisco Bay Area task force/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Wikipedia:WikiProject San Francisco

I've put a suggestion on the talk page for the also very new Wikipedia:WikiProject San Francisco that the two projects should be merged. My suggestion would be to move everything to this project for now, and put redirects from there to here. BlankVerse 08:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge

Poll: Merge WikiProject San Francisco into WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area?

  • Support: Many Bay Area- and San Francisco-related subjects are highly overlapping and difficult to disentangle, plus the active members of both projects are small and entirely overlapping. If enough contributors emerge who want to work on subjects strictly related to the City of San Francisco, we could always split off WP San Francisco again. Right now, having two separate projects is premature. Peter G Werner 07:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Since I'm the one that proposed the merge, I guess that I should. Since both projects are so very new, I formal poll is probably overkill. If most of the four or five people who have edited both projects say merge, and nobody says don't, then that's a good enough consensus. BlankVerse 09:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - as per nom. While the city is diverse enough to have its project vs the entire Bay Area which is the more inclusive project, based upon the level of activity and Peter G Werner's comment, I support combining them until such time, if any, that both projects be combined into the larger project. Ronbo76 14:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not opposed to the idea of merging nor to the idea of having a separate SF-specific WikiProject. I believe SF is complex enough to eventually merit its own WP, maybe not right now. SF-specific things that have broad, regional, importance - e.g. history of SF, economy of SF, major landmarks, etc - would be something that a Bay Area wikiproject could participate in, but I don't think we'd want to get this wikiproject involved in things which are distinctly local - schools, individual neighborhoods.--DaveOinSF 01:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The reason that I recommended the merger is that I've seen that you really need to work pretty hard to get a WikiProject started, and part of that is getting a critical mass of editors involved. In the beginning, the Bay Area WikiProject should cover everything involved with the Bay area, including the local details. Still, it might be best to either adopt an informal structure of separate task lists for different areas, or a more formal task group structure like the Military History WikiProject. Eventually there probably should be a separate San Francisco WikiProject, but that may be one or two years from now. BlankVerse 11:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree with Peter G Werner; they could always be split if San Francisco expanded into a WikiProject worthy of being unique. As of now, both are small and insignificant and could use the strength of joining forces. - Emiellaiendiay 04:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: I agree on bringing these projects together so then they will both get enought information and be able to develope enough together that they can do good on their own. --Gndawydiak 01:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Since there seems to be pretty much unanimous support after having this poll up for several weeks, I'm going to merge the two projects some time in the next few days, unless anybody objects. (Or would like to do it themselves and save me the work. :) Peter G Werner 06:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merged

I've gone and merged the articles and will archive the above discussion unless anybody has anything to add. I've moved the "articles to be improved" list under open tasks to its own page, which is linked to under open tasks. I've divided up the list into general Bay Area topics and various County topics. Science and culture topics I've put in the "general" category. I've also put Museums and Universities under "general", even though strictly speaking, they could be said to be part of various city/county topics. That was a judgment call on my part; if there's not consensus on that, change it - no big deal. I've listed elementary schools through community colleges under local topics. However, its highly questionable whether we should be creating articles about elementary and middle schools at all – if I'm not mistaken, they generally don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please list more articles in need or work, as I've only added general, SF, and Marin-related topics so far. Anyway, hope I didn't jump the gun on all of this. Peter G Werner 05:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles about State and National Parks

I just wanted to get some opinions on this. What do you think should be the convention about State and National Parks vs the geographical features located in them? Specifically, I mean when that park is pretty much synonymous with its main geographical feature. The article on Mount Diablo State Park handles both in the same article (Mount Diablo redirects to the other article). Other articles treat the two separately, but usually at least one of the articles is a stub:

So, merge such articles or keep separate? Peter G Werner 23:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think each case needs to be evaluated independently, and the standard ought to be whether the feature and the park are indeed synonymous or not. Personally, I'd support merging Mount Diablo but keeping Point Reyes separate. Also, any examples from outside the Bay Area?--DaveOinSF 01:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Death Valley and Death Valley National Park are separate. So are Grand Canyon and Grand Canyon National Park. However, Wind Cave redirects to Wind Cave National Park. The convention seems to be to have separate articles in most cases. The article that should be the larger of the two should probably be the one that covers the greatest area. So in the case of Mount Tamalpais, that article should be larger since Mount Tamalpais State Park takes up only part of that area. On the other hand, in the case of something like Death Valley, Death Valley National Park should be larger because though its centered on Death Valley, it includes other areas too. Point Reyes is more difficult – not only is there the National Seashore and the larger area, there's also a difference between Point Reyes proper and the Point Reyes Peninsula, a larger area that also includes towns like Bolinas and Inverness. (In the case of Mount Diablo, I think there's a little inconsistency there between that article and the articles on Mount Tamalpais and San Bruno Mountain.) Peter G Werner 01:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, if convention is to have separate articles in most cases, then we should follow that unless there's a clear reason not to. I'm less concerned about the relative article sizes - people will write about whatever they feel like. Kind of difficult to say "Don't make Article X any longer because, if so, then it will be longer than Article Y, which is more important". No way to control things on that level. However, if you feel that Article Y is important but lacking, it would be something ideal to bring to the attention of the WikiProject.--DaveOinSF 02:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, size is somewhat controllable by moving edits from one article to another, where appropriate. Peter G Werner 09:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Well only if appropriate. I'm less concerned about size than about content. If the right information is in each article, but the one you think should be longer turns out not to be, then I dont' see what the problem is.--DaveOinSF 16:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Santa Cruz County?

Should Santa Cruz County be included in the scope of this WikiProject, or should that be set aside until there's a WikiProject Central Coast? Peter G Werner 11:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a bit touchy. The Bay Area is the nine counties which touch the bay. THe San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Consolidated Statistical Area includes those nine counties and also Santa Cruz and San Benito counties. (You can even make arguments that Mendocino, Lake, Yolo, San Joaquin and Monterey counties are culturally the "Bay Area" too.)
Thus, we either include ONLY the nine counties which touch the bay, or include all eleven counties. I'm inclined not to include the extra two.--DaveOinSF 06:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the thing with Santa Cruz is that these days, its practically a suburb of Silicon Valley, hence tied pretty closely to the core of the SF Bay Area in a way that the other areas you mention are not. As for San Joaquin County – I've lived there. Its geographically and culturally part of the Central Valley and very much not like the Bay Area culturally. Then again, I suppose you could argue that Tracy at least is also a commuter suburb of the Bay Area. (Also, if I'm not mistaken, Napa County doesn't actually touch the Bay, but is considered one of the nine counties.) Peter G Werner 09:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't disagree that Santa Cruz is essentially a suburb of Silicon Valley these days, but by the same standard, we'd also have to include San Benito County. And as for San Joaquin County, well, that was exactly my point. People who live in Tracy commute to jobs in SF, East Bay, Peninsula or Silicon Valley. The times, they are a-changin'.
As for Napa, yeah you're technically right, but you can consider some of the marshland as part of the bay. But here's another standard - the Association of Bay Area Governments includes the nine counties we've defined before; the Metropolitan Transportation Commission uses a nine-county definition; the SF Chronicle uses these nine counties whenever it's using the term "Bay Area". I agree that the definition is shifting, but don't think it's shifted yet.--DaveOinSF 16:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a clear enough definition, then. Somebody could always start a "WikiProject Central Coast" if they want to work on that area. Peter G Werner 07:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to only include the nine Bay Area counties. No one has ever heard of the "eleven Bay Area counties," right? --210physicq (c) 06:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So, for the purposes of this WikiProject, what shall be our scope? Just the nine Bay Area counties? Or...? --210physicq (c) 00:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for the time being, unless circumstances show a clear need to include Santa Cruz County or other areas peripheral to the SF Bay Area. Peter G Werner 07:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added UCSC's template to the education-related templates section, as their administrative reach (and thus the template's scope) goes pretty deeply into the Bay Area-proper, including Lick Observatory on Mount Hamilton and NASA Ames at Moffett Field in its grasp. --Dynaflow 22:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-16 01:22Z

Some really important figures in need of articles

Two very notable (and controversial) figures in San Francisco history do not have any article on them at all – Michael O'Shaughnessy (early cheif city engineer, best known for the O'Shaughnessy Dam at Hetch Hetchy, but did a lot of other things that was important in SF history, such as coming up with the name "Golden Gate Bridge") and Justin Herman (1960's SF Redevelopment Agency head best know for the massive redevelopment of the Western Addition). Also the article on John McLaren (park superintendent) – the man who built Golden Gate Park – is only a stub. These three, for better or worse, played a big role in shaping San Francisco – it seems like they deserve more mention in Wikipedia. Peter G Werner 06:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Bring this project roaring to life

As of now, we have five members. Considering the Bay Area has a population of 6 million, I know we can do better. We must invite more members, add more pages and features to this project, and do a lot of work. So far I've added a userbox and a rating system for tagged articles, but there are a lot of pages left to create. I've taken shamelessly from WikiProject LGBT studies, but I think that with some work we can eventually get to the level that that project is at. — Emiellaiendiay 07:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions:
  • Tagging SF Bay articles with the WikiProject's banner will help. The Calif. project say a nice increase in membership when a bot went through and tagged all the California articles.
  • Personal recruiting: Look through the membership at WP:CAL, as well as regular editors of SF Bay articles, for editors to recruit.
    • When you welcome a new editor who has edited a SF Bay article, also mention the WikiProject.
Good luck with the project. BlankVerse 11:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestions. — Emiellaiendiay 04:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Goals

As I see it, the top two goals as of now are:

  • Tagging and assessing every Bay Area-related article.
  • Inviting more members to join, and encouraging current members to contribute.

From there we can add more goals, such as expanding the options this WikiProject offers (adding a Peer Review, for example).

But what do you all think? Should there be any other major goals as of now? Any ideas how to meet these goals?

(Oh, and another goal of mine is to make sure this Talk page is actually used.)

— Emiellaiendiay 04:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Some more suggested goals:
  • Creating stubs for 'missing' articles
    • Getting new articles and improved stubs mentioned on the Main Page in the Did you know? column
    • Creating a list of 'missing' articles, and stub articles on important topics that need expansion
  • Improving the quality of existing articles
  • Making sure that all SF Bay-area cities have an infobox, with a city logo or flag if available
    • Making sure that all of those cities also have links to official city websites and their local chamber of commerce (and clearing out any spam, low-quality links, and non-relavant links from the External links sections).
  • Raiding the Library of Congress website to find public domain photos that can be uploaded to Commons for cities and communities in the Bay Area that are older than 1923.
One suggestion is to look at some of the other city and regional WikiProjects and see which features they have that you might want to copy or adapt. Some of the Australian city WikiProjects, for example, have fancy progress graphs, although most other city WikiProjects have not copied those.
WikiProject-level Peer Review is something that has only been adopted by a very few of the largest WikiProjects, so I'd suggest holding off until you have a much larger membership.
To get the talk page to be used, suggest that every project member have the page on their watchlist so they will see when new comments are added. BlankVerse 12:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm of two minds on the whole tagging articles thing. On the one hand, it's a good way to drum up participation. On the other hand, what's the use of tagging an article as part of a Project if we don't think we're actually going to work on it within a reasonable time frame? My opinion on where to focus energy would be on identifying pretty good Bay Area articles and bringing them up to Featured status, and on identifying important subjects which lack articles or which are in rather poor condition. Perhaps a more targeted approach.
To that end, I listed the Bay Area-related GAs and former FAs on the Project page, and I think there's already begun a discussion on some articles which require more content. What do people think?--DaveOinSF 18:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The newly created Collaboration of the month I hope will help move articles towards FA status. — Emiellaiendiay 04:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist

Thanks to Ingrid, we now have a watchlist for all relevant articles! You can see the recent changes here [1].

— Emiellaiendiay 06:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Invitation and Welcome templates

I created a template for inviting new participants:

{{WP SFBA Invitation}}

You have been invited to join the WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Bay Area. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!

There's also a "Welcome" template for those who to join:

{{SFBA Welcome}}

Hi, WikiProject California/San Francisco Bay Area task force, and welcome to WikiProject
San Francisco Bay Area!

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles relevant to the Bay Area. Here are some points that may be helpful:

  • Our main aim is to help improve Bay Area-related articles, so if people ask for help with an article, please try your hardest to help them if you are able.
  • Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page. It is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
  • The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, which you are welcome to participate.
  • Our system for improving lower-quality articles is Jumpaclass. If you'll be editing stub, start, or B-class articles, consider using Jumpaclass to track your progress.
  • If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign Bay Area topics.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

Again, welcome! We hope you enjoy working on this project.

I went over the history pages for all the FA, A, and GA-class articles, looked for users who made large or repeated contributions, and invited those who's userpages seemed to indicate they'd be interested in this topic. Also, users from WikiProject California indicating a specific interest in the Bay Area. Hopefully, this will drum up some interest. Peter G Werner 20:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, good job increasing the member count! I like to add on a personal note to invitations, but it's nice that there's a template as well. — Emiellaiendiay 04:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing a county

After decades of studying and tutoring California history, it's a bit surprising to find we lost one of the 9 Bay Area counties. What's missing? Why? KP Botany 04:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We're missing a county? I count Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma, which come out to be nine. Or did you mean in another context? --210physicq (c) 04:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
There are only 8 county templates, and, since this is in the index, if I were to look for what counties are members I would click on the prominently displayed and indexed list of county templates. Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, Napa County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Solano County, Sonoma County, but no San Francisco County = 8. KP Botany 15:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I see. Most of the county templates list cities and other "unincorporated" areas, but San Francisco County has only one city: San Francisco. Hence making a county template is quite redundant and pointless. --210physicq (c) 00:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The "Neighborhoods of San Francisco" template is the San Francisco equivalent of the other county templates. San Francisco County, after all, has only one city, but many neighborhoods. Peter G Werner 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I realize all of this, but do any of you see that if you go to this page and count how many counties there are in the Bay Area the most obvious way to do is to click on the "County Templates" then go down there and count? This is particularly true for people who DON'T live in the Bay Area and may not realize that San Francisco is its own county. Presenting information to an exclusive club of those in the know is not the best way to format an encyclopedia. What you've done is essentially formatted the templates for Bay Area and City residents, not for Wikipedia's audience. San Francisco is unique enough for this that I suspect not most Californians know this, whether the template is used or not, the table should be clarified that San Francisco is one of the Bay Area counties. KP Botany 00:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It is The City and County of San Francisco and should be listed as such. — Athænara ✉ 01:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's still not clear, with the disclaimer, it's exactly the same problem, it looks like San Francisco is not a Bay Area county, but the City is in one of the other counties. Maybe someone could explain the strong objection to listing the City and County of San Francisco with the other counties so I can understand what is going on here?
Thanks, Athænara , seems real straight-forward to me. KP Botany 03:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem is creating a page that gives the appearance of one bit of information, namely that there are 8 counties in the Bay Area, when that is false, there are 9 counties in the Bay Area. Wikipedia is not written for a single user, but for a diverse audience of users, and younger users, especially, are prone to wandering around clicking all over links on Wikipedia. So, they're looking for the number of counties in the Bay Area and get to this page (just 3 clicks from the search) and look at the content box, go down to counties, and see a list of 8. San Francisco IS a county, but it's doesn't have a template, because this page is, apparently, primarily for your use, editing and maintaining, not a general project. This should have been stated up front.
    • The objection is clear, San Francisco is a county, but it doesn't have a county template, and isn't otherwise listed on a prominent list of Bay Area county templates. KP Botany 04:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This is either a Wikipedia project, in which case consensus needs to be reached, or it's a personal project, in which case it belongs in user space, not in WP space. Which is it to be? — Athænara ✉ 04:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a unique situation. Note the following examples found in less than one minute:
— Æ. ✉ 05:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Note also that Denver is not the only "City and County of" in Colorado: both Denver and the City and County of Broomfield are shown and linked in the template as used, for example, in the Colorado counties article itself. — Athænara ✉ 05:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
A county is a particular kind of jurisdiction. I'm frankly not sure what this has to do with a neighborhoods template; perhaps someone can clarify that for me. — Athænara ✉ 05:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought the neighborhoods template was terrific the first time I saw it. I still do. It stands quite well on its own, and I see no reason for it to be absorbed into any other template. For the other, the city and county template in Physicq's subpage seems excellent. — Athænara ✉ 08:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month

I've added the Collaboration of the Month feature. This month's, I hope you don't mind my choosing, is Oakland, California. Basically, the idea is for all project members to focus improving one article a month to FA status, even if some people can only contribute a little. We can discuss the collaboration and possible future articles on the collaboration talk page. — Emiellaiendiay 04:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's in serious need of proper citations if its going to be FA. I'll also note that even though the San Francisco article is at FA status, there are entire sections without proper citation. Peter G Werner 04:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps then San Francisco should be next month's article — the goal being maintaining its FA status by making sure it still qualifies. — Emiellaiendiay 04:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that would be a good idea. Peter G Werner 05:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
What sections in San Francisco need citations? It's substantially identical to how it appeared when it became an FA in September. I'd rather we work on articles that are in need of more serious work than that one.--DaveOinSF 06:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Discuss the March article here. — Emiellaiendiay 06:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like this has passed. Peter G Werner 01:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Award

There is curently a proposal for a WikiProject California Award. I proposed expanding it to include this WP. Check out the link and feel free to comment. --evrik (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • There is currently a final vote being held on a WikiProject Award for all California related projects. You may wish to give your input here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jumpaclass

I've added the Jumpaclass feature. Please participate! Pick a stub, start, or B-class article and improve at least one level within a week. Direct any questions to the talk page. I suspect that people already work on improving stub/start/B class articles, and so this is just an opportunity to be recognized for your work and to encourage it.

— Emiellaiendiay 18:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks to emiellaindiay for setting this feature up. it could be a very valuable mechanism for upgrading articles. there are some articles shaping up, but we badly need reviewers who will assess the improvement to articles. please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area/Jumpaclass. regards. Anlace 06:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
we still need reviewers badly, since we are backlogged in reviewing the new and improved articles. can anyone help at Jumpaclass? thanks. Anlace 04:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Done —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-27 12:22Z

San Francisco Bay Area

There's an issue about whether to describe the region as a single metropolitan area or not in the intro. Describing the entire region as a single metropolitan area is misleading since most other metro area articles do not use a multiple core definition, or indicate that the article refers to a group of metro areas. I have suggested using "metropolitan region" as an alternative description. Any thoughts you have on this matter would be helpful. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 15:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. — Emiellaiendiay 20:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Importance assessment?

San Francisco Bay Area articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 9 14 30 53
FL 1 2 15 11 29
FM 40 40
GA 2 12 65 114 11 204
B 25 116 208 285 103 737
C 22 122 424 961 2 406 1,937
Start 13 150 918 3,804 4 934 5,823
Stub 12 174 3,518 3 455 4,162
List 1 57 110 25 193
Category 1,841 1,841
Disambig 9 9
File 64 64
Portal 1,138 1,138
Project 20 20
Redirect 1 7 10 203 379 600
Template 238 238
NA 1 1
Other 2 2
Assessed 64 431 1,885 9,036 3,741 1,934 17,091
Unassessed 65 65
Total 64 431 1,885 9,036 3,741 1,999 17,156
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 64,456 Ω = 4.99

Hello, I am joining the project. Question: was assessment of importance intentionally omitted? —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 03:58Z

It was omitted because I based the tagging system off a project that didn't have it. However, Anlace is trying to add it. — Emiellaiendiay 04:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
i tried but didnt succeed. hope someone else will be able to do this coding. Anlace 06:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done I've added the importance= parameter to {{SFBAProject}} and set up the corresponding categories and such. I've rated some articles. The bot is working. See the table —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-27 14:09Z

Should we have some kind of criteria for importance ratings? The current assessments seem idiosyncratic in some cases. Perhaps we should have a table or list that shows the minimum or expected level of importance for types of articles, such as :

  • Top counties; 5 or 10 largest cities; main subject articles (SFBA history, geography, climate, economy, etc.); universities (over some level of size or other ranking); National parks (and similar places); iconic structures and major geographic features (GG Bridge, Mt. Tam, SF Bay, the Delta)
  • High County seats (not already in the Top list); next 10 or 20 largest cities; most remaining accredited four-year colleges (with some ranking criteria); State parks (and some major county and other parks); regional governments
  • Mid remaining incorporated cities and towns; special districts; community colleges; school districts; subject articles of the form "Eduction in Foo;" Census Designated Places; major media
  • Low most schools; most technical and specialty colleges; most buildings; most neighborhoods; most local bands, celebrities, and politicians

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjal (talk • contribs)

I generally agree with this. However, I'm not sure about default ranking for biographical information as "low". Many individuals are historically and culturally important in the context of writing about the Bay Area and should be given higher priority. (In fact, I could think of a lot of artists and musicians that have more relevance to Bay Area culture than information about local school districts, which is given a "mid" ranking.) Also, cultural subjects (arts, music, etc) in the Bay Area deserve some criteria for ranking. As for neighborhoods, I don't agree that should be "low" either – I think San Francisco neighborhoods should be treated as equivalent to incorporated towns in other counties. On the subject of schools, some differentiation should be made between high schools and middle and elementary schools. The latter two are not only low priority, IMO, but its doubtful that most middle and elementary schools even merit a WP article. Peter G Werner 18:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Great discussion Hjal and Peter G Werner. A consistent importance grading scheme is indeed important. Since I was the first to start rating importance I'm sure some of the articles I rated are inconsistent at the moment. I'm of the opinion that with this kind of thing it's best to just jump into it and start rating articles, and as you go you'll figure out what previous ratings should be changed, and criteria will evolve from that. Feel free to upgrade or downgrade any articles I rated. I've started off the importance grading scheme at Wikipedia:WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area/Assessment#Importance scale based on input here. Hjal, great start, and I agree with Peter's points about SF neighborhoods and biographies. Go ahead and make changes to it and we can keep discussing here. Especially if you have any input on the quantitative decisions like how many cities to put in each stratum, go ahead and edit the page and note the changes here. (bold, revert, discuss :). —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-08 06:16Z

I've made some additions and modifications – let me know what you think of them. Basically, I added some rankings for biographical, cultural, and scientific topics. I put national and state parks at the same rank – we really only have two national parks in the Bay Area (GGNRA and Point Reyes National Seashore) and I don't think they're any more or less significant than areas protected in state parks, like Mount Tamalpais or Mount Diablo. I also dropped language about middle and elementary schools entirely, as there's some debate on Wikipedia as to whether such subjects are even notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Peter G Werner 19:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Excellent :) —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-12 19:18Z

For reasons that I can't even begin to fathom, the assessment bot seems to have stopped working. The log (Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/SFBA articles by quality log) shows that the last time it ran was June 4, 2007. I know for certain that there have been changes in article ratings because I went on a spree and assessed over 100 articles. Anyone have any idea what the problem may be and how to fix it? Running it manually seems to have no effect. MissMJ 19:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done The problem has been found and fixed. MissMJ 19:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mayors

While closing AFDs I stumbled upon George Starbird and saved it from deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Starbird). I noticed that List of mayors of San Jose, California has a ton of redlinks to notable people; we can easily write at least stubs for all of them. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 04:04Z

That's true. I'll try to work on that. Do you know of any sources of historical information on these people? — Emiellaiendiay 04:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I used Newsbank to read some old SJ Mercury News, SF Chronicle articles. If you're willing to go to the library, any book on Bay Area history should have a lot of info. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 04:16Z
It seems to be easier to focus on more recent mayors, who actually have Google results, and then work backwards up the list. That's what I'll try to do. Thanks for the names of the sources. — Emiellaiendiay 04:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sonoma County, California desperately seeking attention

The Sonoma County, California article was recently nominate for FAC. It's a WP:SNOWjob, though. The article is dreadful. Can folks go and start editing it? It's a stack of lists without context. The lists can be made into their own articles, but the article desperately needs prose. I hope that other county articles are not as dreadful as this one, but would it be possible to focus on the counties first, rather than cities? KP Botany 20:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

proposal for deletion or merge of Wine Country

There is an important debate occurring at Talk:Wine Country. Anlace 14:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject California Schools

As leader of WikiProject California Schools, I would like it if you would link to our page as a "sister/brother" project. We will be especially focusing on the San Francisco Bay Area, as I am a resident of San Jose myself. I am a member of the SF Bay WikiProject, and this would be a good deed towards unifying Wikipedia... lol ... thanks

--Wikimania1011-Wikimania1011 UserTalk 23:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-26 01:28Z

SF meetup

Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco 2. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 21:31Z

Marin County Shopping Centers

There are a couple of articles on Marin County shopping centers, all of which way or may not be notable enough for a wikipedia article. Therefore, I propose merging all of them into one page, something along the lines of Shopping Centers in Marin County, CA. All the different shopping venues would have their own subsection. The articles in question are:

Comments? Suggestions? Metallic 95 User Page | Talk 13:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend that you check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Shopping Centers before you attempt to do anything. I am not totally familiar with that WikiProject, but they seem to be writing and maintaining various articles on shopping centers and malls. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

New article - Green Apple Books & Music

I'm not sure if you have a new article announcement board (if so, I can't find it), but this is a new article written by a new Wikipedian. I've been helping him with verifiability and notability concerns, and I'm sure he'd appreciate any help. Thanks, Fang Aili talk 20:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to add some information to the article; if anyone gets to it before I do, here are some relevant sources I found: [2], [3](paid archive), [4], [5], among others in this search. JavaTenor 21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger of multiple neighborhood articles into East Oakland

User:Jeepday has proposed that every neighborhood listed on the East Oakland, Oakland, California article be merged into that article. The discussion at the moment is mainly between Jeepday and one other editor. Since the articles in question are part of this project, I'm posting this here to alert the members to the discussion. -Nogood 03:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Leo J. Ryan Federal Building

-- I have nominated the article Leo J. Ryan Federal Building as a Wikipedia:Good articles candidate. If you can review it and either pass it as a Good Article, and/or give a Review on the article's talk page as to how the article can be improved to increase its article quality eventually to Featured Article Status, it would be most appreciated. Thank you for your time. Smee 08:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

-- This article passed as a Good Article. I have now nominated Leo J. Ryan Memorial Park as a Good Article candidate. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 01:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC).

New Bay Area Template

I have just recently created a new template devoted to Bay Area cities and counties. Link to template is here: Template:SF Bay Area. At this time it isn't finished, and it'll still need a lil more tweaking to it. GETONERD84 21:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I tweaked it so it looks more similar to other metro templates like Template:Chicagoland and Template:Atlanta Metro. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, how many cities and communities are you going to put on this template? If you put every single unincorporated community on there, it is going to be redundant to the county templates. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
After looking over most other metropolitan area templates, I'm limiting it to towns with 10,000 people or more per that metro template standard. GETONERD84 20:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Place name disambiguation

Input at Talk:Union Square, San Francisco#Requested move would be appreciated, and particularly at Talk:Union Square, San Francisco#Discussion where the possibility is raised that this may set a precedent for the rest of Category:San Francisco neighborhoods. Andrewa 01:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

San Jose, California FAR

San Jose, California has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

San Jose was demoted on July 13, 2007, and remains a Former featured article today.--Hjal (talk) 02:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Joshua A. Norton FAC

Joshua A. Norton (a.k.a Emperor Norton I) which was demoted from FA status last fall, is currently a Feature Article Candidate.--Paul 21:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It was promoted back to FA on July 7, 2007, and remains so as of today.--Hjal (talk) 02:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Threshold for biographical articles - born and raised in BA enough?

I'm chasing down articles to add to the project but I keep running into close calls in a couple areas:

1. Biographies. There are often people who were born and raised here, then left. For example, Laurence Tribe, one of America's most distinguished legal scholars. I would love to count him in here, but I don't think he has any real ties. I've been tagging them "people from San Francisco" or "People from the Bay Area" but not adding the SFBAProject tag. Other national figures, like Maya Angelou, Mark Twain, or even Jack Keroac, [[have deeper roots in that their time in the Bay Area seems to have affected them, they have left a lasting impression on SF, or their personal histories are more closely entwined with those of the city. So I include them.

2. Social and art movements. For example, Hippies, the Hells Angels, sourdough bread, and the Beat Generation are international phenomena but are either associated with the Bay Area in everyone's mind, contain important sections on the history or culture of SF, or had a major local impact. So I add them to the project.

Any thoughts? Wikidemo 05:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessment counting bot

Who operates the assessment bot? It doesn't seem to have collected the counts on articles lately. It would be nice to have a fairly up to date running total of good articles, unrated articles, high importance articles, etc. Also, any chance of getting links on all the elements on the class-versus-importance matrix? For example it would be nice to link to a list of all important articles that are stubs, or B class articles with unrated importance. Thanks, Wikidemo 05:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You and I seem to be running on parallel tracks with our projects. See Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Using_the_bot. The bot does not run everyday, but there is a link on there to force a bot run for your project (I think). Also see Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index. This has links for statistics, log, category, etc. that you can add as shortcuts to your assessment page and perhaps do what you want. On the Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Assessment page, the person who set up the page include the log of when the bot ran (which seems TMI for me, but handy for some. --Tinned Elk 17:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You are correct, the bot doesn't run every day. A log of when it ran and what it assessed can be found here: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/SFBA articles by quality log. MissMJ 21:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WP meetup

  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup 3
  Date: September 16th, 2007
  Place: Yerba Buena Gardens, 3pm
  San Francisco Meetup 2

-- phoebe/(talk) 06:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking for a wikipedia expert in the bay area

Hi, following User:Zzyzx11 recommendation - i'm posting a message here. I really need some help/consulting regarding the dynamics of a mass-collaboration platform. If you are an active & experience wikipedian and you're interested, i would really appreciate if you can leave me a note on my user page so I can tell you more about it. --Eyalmc 00:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

meetup!

  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup 4
  Date: Nov 10, 2007
  Place: Help us choose it!
  prev: Meetup 3 - next: Meetup 5

-- phoebe/(talk) 03:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

San Francisco image sources

Operating on the belief that libraries are friendly to wikipedia, doesn't it seem possible that the SFPL might be willing to grant a blanket usage of their historical photos to wikipedia? (I'd just call 'em, but it's almost midnight here...) So that prompts three questions:

  1. Has this ever been tried?
  2. If this works, is there any place (other than this wikiproject, the obvious choice) where such a standing agreement would officially be kept?
  3. Doesn't it make sense that other organizations might be willing to do the same? What others should be approached?

MrRedwood 06:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Article for Deletion: October 2007 Alum Rock earthquake

October 2007 Alum Rock earthquake at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/October 2007 Alum Rock earthquake (31 October 2007)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Article for Deletion: Alum Rock earthquake

Alum Rock earthquake at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alum Rock earthquake (31 October 2007)

appears to be technical information about the 2007 Alum Rock earthquake
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

SUGGESTION

I've recently joined this project and to contribute, I have rated articles on their class and importance. This is a really easy thing for me to do, so I do it quite a bit. Many Wikiprojects allow their members to adopt an article or a task. Maybe this WikiProject should start doing this? If so, I'll be happy to adopt rating articles on their class and importance. Paul Italiano (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

New photo request category

Please see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in San Francisco County, California. GregManninLB (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Chapter

I am looking into starting Wikimedia California. Anyone interested? Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Big Al's AFD

The Big Al's article has been nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Big_Al's). The impression I get is that it's a significant local landmark, if nothing else, but I'm not from SF so contributions from anyone more knowledgeable about the subject than I would be welcome. Debate (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article status for San Francisco, California

Although this article is listed as a Featured Article, it no longer meets the criteria. For the most part, it looks very good. There is a lack of references throughout the article, though. If the article can be thoroughly referenced, I have no problem with it remaining as a Featured Article. I wanted to mention this to the relevant WikiProjects to see if anyone is willing to work on the sourcing for this article. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

RFC on Harvey Milk

A request for comment has been posted at Talk:Harvey Milk#REQUEST FOR COMMENT: Milk's involvement with Jim Jones/Peoples Temple. Other editor's input would be appreciated. Banjeboi 04:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Lighthouse articles being renamed to another project's style

Many of the articles on lighthouses and light stations included in List of Registered Historic Places in California have been moved from "Foo Point Lighthouse" or "Foo Point Light Station" to "Foo Point Light." This is done without discussion in most cases. Some existing articles were simply changed to redirects to new articles with the new naming convention adopted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Lighthouses.

Please review the discussion regarding the propsal to move Point Reyes Lighthouse to Point Reyes Light at Talk:Point Reyes Lighthouse.--Hjal (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Anonymous editors have been changing the wording of Berkeley Oak Grove Protest, and article in your project's scope, and have recently added a NPOV template. I'd like opinions from other editors, so please stop on by and leave a comment here! Thanks! --Falcorian (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ohlone GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed Ohlone and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a few issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article and other related WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 814 of the articles assigned to this project, or 24.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems worth a try. I've added the necessary template to our project page. Stepheng3 (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Userbox Proposal by County

I have prototype Userboxes for eight of nine Counties for consideration by this WikiProject; I saw no need to include the City and County of San Francisco in my proposal (a Template:User San Francisco and variants already existing). Suggestions, if any, may be left at User talk:B.C.Schmerker/User boxes. And DO keep me posted on which ones are adopted. - B. C. Schmerker (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Templates for review:
User:B.C.Schmerker/User boxes/User Contra Costa County
User:B.C.Schmerker/User boxes/User Alameda County
User:B.C.Schmerker/User boxes/User Santa Clara County
User:B.C.Schmerker/User boxes/User San Mateo County
User:B.C.Schmerker/User boxes/User Marin County
User:B.C.Schmerker/User boxes/User Solano County
User:B.C.Schmerker/User boxes/User Sonoma County
User:B.C.Schmerker/User boxes/User Napa County

Thanks, I've added these to list at the project's userbox list. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agnew's Village, California

I've just created Agnew's Village, California. If appropriate, a project member may wish to add the {{SFBA Project}} template to its talk page. I don't participate in this project, so it would be presumptuous for me to do so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TJRC (talk • contribs) 16:43, August 4, 2008

I've tagged the article, Santa Clara county counts as in the bay area, so yeah. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear. I routinely add the templates of projects I don't participate in; it hadn't occurred to me that doing so was presumptuous. If it is, sorry. Not least because I have just added the template of this project to an article: see the following topic. -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Mother's Motors, Berkeley

A vigorous but newish editor has created an article on Mother's Motors, a motorbike shop of the sixties. It seems potentially interesting but is also problematic, with vague claims that are unsourced and a lot of what at this point looks like little more than name-dropping. It has already been flagged for speedy deletion (not by me) and had the template removed (neither by its author nor by me). I sense that the subject is worthwhile and hope that some of the denizens of this talk page will know how to help the article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article review for San Francisco, California

San Francisco, California has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The San Francisco article successfully kept it's FA Status (Wikipedia:Featured article review/San Francisco, California/archive1) thanks to the work Paul.h, Sfmammamia, Kurykh, and others. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge

San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The bay bridge's FA has been removed (Wikipedia:Featured article review/San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge/archive1). -Optigan13 (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Project page redesign

Would anyone object if I changed the Project page to a style similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Viruses? Most of the project page, and the project itself also appear to be inactive so I was also thinking of polling participants to get an accurate count of active members. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of doing right off, do you mind drafting what you want to change on a sandbox page? I wouldn't mind a project page update if I knew there are noticeable differences and improvements (sometimes it's actually good to not fix something that's not necessarily broken). :D Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 09:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
It's up on my sandbox, but please don't edit those pages yet. I don't mind tons of tinkering on them if we use them, I just want to be able to db-author in case it is decided against. See User:Optigan13/Sandbox. Honestly I'm more concerned about what I think is limited activity, a collaboration of the month that hasn't changed since February 2007 and other tools/sub-pages that have gone neglected/gone useless. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It looks good... BoL (Talk) 04:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think one of the main problems is that the COTD/COTF/COTM/etc... have been dying across the board since the Article Improvement Drive became "historic." I think most of the editors on this WikiProject are still active, they've just moved onto other WikiProjects that needs further development. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
BTW, it looks great! :D - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you think a poll of the participants and a page redesign would help this? It looks like this project also used to have several involved content contributors who have since moved on. I'm just upset watching the bay bridge FAR writers go without assistance after their interest has justifiably wained when the SF article's FAR went so well. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this is undoubtedly one of those WP:BOLD movements. If you want to bring something back to life, I guess promoting activity may bring some of them back. A poll or just an informal RfC would be fine. :D - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 05:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Someone let me know whether they want a newsletter for it. I'll try to make an ad. BoL (Talk) 05:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to make an animated ad for this WP. Below are a list of images I plan on using. I wanted to use one picture per county for our ad, but I think that's become a bit difficult. Please comment on the pictures and if some of the pictures should be switched out. Note that if you want a picture to be switched out, the picture(s) should be on WikiCommons.
Tell me what you guys think. I might arrange it similar to the ad I made for WikiProject Universities and WikiProject Robotics. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 09:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

redesign done

Well I've updated the page with the redesign and polled everyone with {{subst:SFBA Rollcall}}. As pointed out to BoL on his talk page his banner ad for the project is up {{Wikipedia ads|ad=153}} and only one is allowed per project, but I noticed that WP:California doesn't seem to have an ad so if you want to roll your ideas into an ad for them that would probably help. -Optigan13 (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The ad looks great! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

B/C quality class reassessment

Recently, the quality scale introduced a C-class, with the B-class criteria becoming more restrictive. However, the restricting of criteria is an project-by-project opt-in procedure, which entails fiddling {{SFBAProject}}, demoting all B-class articles to C-class, and reassessing such articles individually against a defined set of criteria in order to regain B-class status. I think we should do this to more accurately gauge the quality of the articles in our scope, and concentrate improvement where needed (and we only have 286 B-class articles right now, so it's manageable). Thoughts? —kurykh 17:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help with this. Stepheng3 (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Though wouldn't it be better to move all the B's to unassessed, so we don't duplicate effort? Stepheng3 (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The B-class to C-class thing is automatic upon implementation. You can also assess the current 10 C-class articles in more detail while you're at it. —kurykh 17:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at that noticing that we also have categories and other non-article material mixed in with unknown importance listed at Category:Unknown-Importance SFBA articles, so the talk page template definitely needs an update/adjustment, at least to split the unknown importance to non-applicable. I would prefer to also split the pages into the classes listed at {{WikiProject California}}. Also when I did the page redesign I wasn't sure if it would be better if we don't have that many active members to combine into the WP California as a task force, since we have a lot of overlap on article tagging and on membership, although that is a bit drastic. On a related note can someone please reassess San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge, it is unassessed after the FAR. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Due to lack of opposition, I invoked WP:BOLD and implemented the changes. The effects seemed to have been more than I anticipated; B- and C-class articles were actually demoted to start-class. To re-acquire their former ratings, they need to be checked against a list of criteria found on the doc page on the template or in Wikipedia:WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area/Assessment. So, let the reassessments begin! —kurykh 06:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Political Articles to NPOV

Lately I noticed a lots of Politician articles are POV using weasel words and generalizations to frame them in a positive manner. For example using words such as "Best" or generalizations such as "worked with environmentalist" or reference their campaign/government websites. I think it is critical that we fix these mistakes to make it NPOV and not make it seem wikipedia supports them.--Cs california (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind {{npov}}, you may also tag the articles that needs attention with article issues (weasel) if necessary. If you have a particular question or an article that requires particular attention, please let us know. In the mean time, please remember to place new talk issues on the bottom of the talk page. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"low" importance ranking of Key System (Streetcars) in the East Bay

Does anyone else see this topic, the now dismantled Key System of electric streetcars, as being historically significant to the urbanization of the East Bay? I question its "low" importance ranking?Critical Chris (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, first off, my question is what do you believe the assessment should be? - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 03:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Phil Bronstein: Edit needs check

"Funny" edit in Phil Bronstein ("the executive vice president and editor of the San Francisco Chronicle", and "was formerly executive editor of the San Francisco Examiner.")
- On 17 June 2008, User:Chloe702 made an edit with summary as follows: "Changed "Fong" to "Fang," and "sold" to "transferred" and added "politically well-connected." I was the Executive Production Editor of the Examiner at the time. The Fang family used its"
(This is User:Chloe702's only edit to Wikipedia.)
Is any of this correct? Can any of this be cited?
As far as I know, "I'm the source for this info" is not acceptable under WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That it is Fang and not Fong is definitely correct. Officially the Examiner was sold, but there were non-standard aspects to it. Whether their political connections were relevant, I could not say.--Coro (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

re-rate Harvey Milk

Hi, could someone please visit this article and consider re-rating it, it has been completely rewritten. -- Banjeboi 02:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The rating was already changed to B-Class, but the checklist was not filled in, so it was stuck in Start-Class instead. I've added the checklist back in and it does show up as B-Class now. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 03:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you - there is an effort to get it to FA within a month. -- Banjeboi 13:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Any and all eyes on the peer review would be appreciated. Much of it includes general issues in San Francisco in the 1970s. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Milk at FAC

Just to let you know: Harvey Milk is at FAC. If you think it deserves to be promoted, please respond on that FAC page. If you think something should be changed or fixed in the article, please respond on that FAC page. There have been fewer FAC reviewers lately. I am concerned that the article will go unnoticed for the most part and archived for lack of response. It will probably stay at FAC for another week. I'm going to leave similar messages at other WikiProjects. --Moni3 (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations/archive1

Hi, I am trying to nominate List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations for FL status. It is currently under peer review. So if anyone could help improve it or offer comments, that would be great. Thanks —Chris! ct 19:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

San Jose Sharks

Hello to everybody in this project. The WikiProject Ice Hockey is currently looking for editors to help update team articles about the 2008-09 NHL season. If you are interested in the NHL, please consider helping us keep these article current. To sign up, go to this page and add your name beside the team or teams you wish to particpate in. For a guide to expanding the article, see 2007-08 Pittsburgh Penguins season which is currently listed as a Good Article. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at WT:HOCKEY or at my talk page. Hope to here back from you, GrszReview! 16:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

SF Meetup #8

  In the area? You're invited to
   San Francisco Meetup # 8
  Date: November 8th, 2008
  Time: 2PM
  Place: Metacafe, Palo Alto, California
  prev: Meetup 7 - next: Meetup 9
This is posted to the groups by request. Please sign up on the Invite list for future anouncements. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

commons:Category:Stereo cards of the San Francisco earthquake of 1906

Russian Hill circa 1906.

I just uploaded a collection of stereographs taken after the 1906 earthquakes. Many historical landmarks are depicted. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I've just moved Chinatown, San Francisco, California to Chinatown, San Francisco, but realised I should have got consensus first. Would it be an idea to remove the ", California" from SF-related articles now that the parent article's name is just San Francisco? I would probably think that WP guidelines would suggest a degree of consistency here, the closest thing that WP:PLACES mentions is consistency within a country. Regards, --Joowwww (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

mountain range stubs for California done

Some SFBAProject members probably already noticed this going on... I completed adding mountain range stubs to get the redlinks out of List of mountain ranges of California (talk). Many of these were in the Bay Area counties. I also added a geobox, locator map, coordinates and a ref from USGS GNIS for existing mountain range articles that didn't already have them, since those were easily cut&pasted from the output of the program that generates the stub article text. Ikluft (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Picture request - 2590 Webster Street - Italian consulate in San Francisco

Hi! The Italian consulate is at 2590 Webster Street - http://www.conssanfrancisco.esteri.it/Consolato_SanFrancisco - Does anyone mind taking a photo of it? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories up for discussion

Several San Francisco categories are up for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 24. I figure other folks on this WikiProject might be interested in having their say. Cheers,--Stepheng3 (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Roseland, California

I have a disagreement with Clab6 (talk · contribs · email) about whether Roseland should have an article separate from Santa Rosa, California. I'd be grateful if someone could provide us with a third perspective on the matter. If interested, please respond on Talk:Roseland, California. --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Electric Transit, Inc. reassessment request

Back in late January/early February 2009, I extensively revised and expanded the article, Electric Transit, Inc., which is about the company that built most (273) of S.F. Muni's current fleet of trolley coaches. However, the quality assessment noted on the article's talk page remains "stub-class", an assessment made a full year earlier, in February 2008. Could someone please reassess the article when convenient? Thanks. SJ Morg (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can change the assessment to any rating, except GA and FA of course. I've change it to B class.—Chris! ct 18:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:SFBAProject Misbehaving

Please see Talk:Oakland Unified School District. This project's template is defaulting to B Class and placing both Unassessed and B class categories. Please fix this. Thanks. Adam McCormick (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ehm, yes, just wanted to tell the same.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 09:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I Think that's fixed, please let me know if something's gone wrong. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Photo request: Viz Media headquarters

Would someone mind photographing the Viz Media at 295 Bay Street [6]? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Herrera

I deprodded this article about the SF City Attorney and added some references; someone hear might know more about him to knock the article into shape. Fences&Windows 23:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

New category: Mountain ranges of the San Francisco Bay Area

FYI: I created a new category Category:Mountain ranges of the San Francisco Bay Area as a subcat of Category:Mountain ranges of Northern California and Category:Landforms of the San Francisco Bay Area. I recategorized 25 mountain range articles from Northern California into it, which are all the ones in USGS GNIS for the Bay Area counties. Ikluft (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

San Francisco International Airport GAR notice

San Francisco International Airport has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Virgin America article

If you would all be so kind as to review the issue being discussed at this article and weigh in with your opinion I would appreciate it. We'd like to incur a larger, more objective, unemotional share of input then what exists right now. Thank you very much for your time and we really appreciate it. 68.52.42.38 (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oakland Raiders GAR warning

Oakland Raiders has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

OIF US Deaths

Should the two US Servicemembers woes hometown were registered as being in San Mateo County have articles written on them? They have meet minimum notability requirements, but some would argue that it would be POV pushing, or be an obituary article if created. The individuals in specific are as follows:

  • Angelo Zawaydeh
    • Morente, Christine (2006-03-25). "200 gather to mourn San Bruno GI killed in Iraq". Oakland Tribune. ANG Newspapers. Retrieved 2008-12-21. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
    • "California's War Dead" (Database). Data Desk. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2008-12-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
    • "Army Pfc. Angelo Zawaydeh, 19, San Bruno; Killed in Iraq". Los Angeles Times. 2006-04-23. pp. B-16. Retrieved 2008-12-21. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
    • Rubenstein, Steve (2007-03-18). "Portraits of Sacrifice, Angelo A. Zawaydeh: San Bruno". San Francisco Chronicle. Hearst Communications Inc. pp. E-4. Retrieved 2008-12-21. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Andrew Dang

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

They seem to meet notability requirements to me. I see no reason we couldn't have articles on them. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Changing this project to a task force of WikiProject California

Based on the general project activity level, number of participants, and the overlap of pages in scope with WP:WikiProject California (2984/4637 ~64%), I feel this project should be changed to a task force of WikiProject California. Right now this would involve replacing all instances of {{SFBA Project}} with {{WikiProject California|sfba = yes |sfba-importance = }} (or something to that effect). It would also mean a lot of what is laid out at WP Med's task force conversion checklist. Personally I'm not in favor of carrying over the B-list checklist from {{SFBA Project}} into {{WikiProject California}}. Although it's helpful when assessing an article, I think the number of articles in both SFBA and Cal's scope would dwarf any uses of it. Any thoughts, objections, etc? -Optigan13 (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Demote - per above—Chris! ct 18:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
64% of WP California pages are also WP:San Francisco Bay? To me this looks like we lack content about areas outside of the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas. I find it shocking that the corresponding Wikiproject for the San Francisco area is having low activity. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
No,
Making it
  • 2,987 (Intersect) / 4,637 (SFBA) ~ 64% of SFBA pages also have a CAL tag.
  • 2,987 (Intersect) / 20,905 (CAL) ~ 22% of CAL pages also have a SFBA tag.
We don't have enough activity to make it worth the hassle to maintain two seperate banners, assessments, respond to queries on this page, etc.. For example {{SFBA Project}} was misfiring from February to July without any correction, see WT:SFBA#Template:SFBAProject Misbehaving above. -Optigan13 (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Does this WikiProject have a WikiProject advertisement? If not, maybe a way to get numbers back up is to place an advertisement to attract people to join. Perhaps we should place an advertisement and see what happens before demoting this project. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia ads|ad=153}} we've had that since August 2008 File:Qxz-ad153.gif. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've moved the project and adjusted categories for being a task force. I'll place a bot request to update the template usage in the next few days. I've temporarily disabled the cleanup listing and article alerts until that is done. -Optigan13 (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a glitch here regarding the "importance" rating. The bot has been adding a variable, sfba-importance, to all of the Wikiproject California tags, reflecting their former importance assessment with respect to the Bay Area project. However, the variable is unused, so in cases where there is no California project importance assessment the importance shows up as missing, and where there is a California importance assessment, that one takes priority. I assume a similar thing happens with the quality assessments. I'm wondering whether a second pass with the bot should be made, or the template altered to do either of two things: (1) display the Bay Area assessment if there is no CA assessment, (2) display the lower of the two assessments, or (3) suggest (with an annotation to make clear it is an automatic assessment) a fill-in for the missing assessment. One can generally assume for logical reasons that would be too complex for my brain to suss out right now that the California importance will be related to the Bay Area importance, at the same or a lower level. But there are cases where the importance in the bay area will be particularly high or low compared to the California importance. Something that is a local institution with no particular reach outside the Bay Area could be less important than expected for the broader project, whereas something that is a state-wide issue with only tangential importance to the bay area could have the inverse relationship. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The variable is being used, it doesn't show in the template but it is categorizing the pages. If you look at the bottom of something like Talk:San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge you'll see that it is Mid importance for WP:CAL, but Top importance for WP:SFBA. The quality assessment is shared, since a C-class California article is a C-Class Bay Area article. Myself and a few others have been working on importance standards statewide at WT:CAL, and I was hoping once that is finally done to go through the Bay Area articles and apply similar standards with adjustments to ones that have higher importance to the bay area than the state. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

New article

Harold Sturtevant Steve Dufour (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

David Hewes Building

can someone add the david hewes building to wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.69.9 (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

empty subcategories of SFBA articles needing attention

Due to the demotion of this project and associated changes to the project templates, the following categories are no longer in use:

  1. Category:SFBA articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy
  2. Category:SFBA articles with incomplete B-Class checklists
  3. Category:SFBA articles needing attention to referencing and citation
  4. Category:SFBA articles needing attention to structure
  5. Category:SFBA articles needing attention to supporting materials

Unless someone objects, I plan to delete these using {{db-c1}}. --Stepheng3 (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There are rankings by specific task forces (i.e. by class and by importance), so it may be useful to keep around these categories. On another note, I am spreading around the portal and task force tags to get activity up here. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually they are all categories that were part of {{SFBAProject}} which should be empty now. {{WikiProject California|sfba=yes}} should be in use everywhere at this point, so deleting those categories should be fine. -Optigan13 (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay. In that case, that's fine. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

To attract attention to the project

We need to post the link to the SFBA portal in every SFBA-related article. Through the portal people can learn about this task force. Hopefully it can get its participation up so it can become its own WikiProject again. With the highly educated population and abundance of companies in the region, one would expect a high level of participation from the SFBA area. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

FAR for Henry Edwards (entomologist)

Henry Edwards (entomologist) has been listed for review at Featured Article. The guy was an actor in SF and an early member of the Bohemian Club. Binksternet (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean to take it to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates? It's never been an FA, so Featured Article Review (FAR) doesn't apply. FAR is for checking whether existing FAs still hold up over time (editing, changing standards). -Optigan13 (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yes, FAC is the right spot for it. Binksternet (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Green Day

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Green Day/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Leo Ryan GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Leo Ryan for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 28 jan 2010

GA reassessment of Balboa High School (San Francisco, California)

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a number of concerns with the article which will need major work so I have delisted it. Please see Talk:Balboa High School (San Francisco, California)/GA1 for further information. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Potentilla hickmanii

This article has undergone reassessment in accordance with the GA Sweeps process. Currently, the article has been placed on hold to allow time for necessary improvements. If, after 7 days, these issues have not been addressed, the article will be delisted. If you have any queries, please don't hesitate to contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege (TALK) 12:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC for Temple Sinai (Oakland, California)

Temple Sinai (Oakland, California) is currently a Featured Article Candidate. Comments, suggestions, improvements welcome. The discussion is here. Jayjg (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

review and input sought

I have been working on Saint Joseph Parish (Mountain View, California), and am using it as a template to do the parishes of the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Jose in California. I would very much appreciate some input. I have flagged it for attention and submitted it for peer review.

Thanks, Alvincura (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Geography

There's a user, Geoffrey100, revising many SF Bay Area related articles and removing cities, transit agencies, radio stations, etc., without explanation and based upon his narrow definition of "Bay Area". Please review these changes. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

PHOTO REQUEST: Russian cruiser Varyag (1983)

Can somebody get a snap of the Russian cruiser Varyag (1983)?

Thanks. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Cliff House, San Francisco

Someone may want to look in on Cliff House, San Francisco, and especially its talk page. Someone has weighed in saying that our article is riddled with errors, and I believe he's right, but San Francisco history is not particularly an area of my expertise, so I leave it to someone on this project to follow up. - Jmabel | Talk 05:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Kearney Street Plaza"

Resolved

Commons:File:Kearney Street Plaza (Plazza), San Francisco, Cal, from Robert N. Dennis collection of stereoscopic views.png (and a few others that show the same image): does anyone know where this would have been? Clearly "Kearney" is "Kearny". Is this Portsmouth Plaza, or somewhere else? - Jmabel | Talk 05:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Answering my own question: yes, it is. File:Portsmouth Square, San Francisco, from Robert N. Dennis collection of stereoscopic views.jpg is the same image. - Jmabel | Talk 05:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Woodward's Gardens

A piece of San Francisco history that certainly deserves an article: Woodward's Gardens. See http://www.sanfranciscomemories.com/woodwardsgardens/index.html. I ran across this because of work I was doing on Commons. See Commons:Category:Stereo cards of Woodward's Gardens. Looks like in its heyday it was quite a place. - Jmabel | Talk 06:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

SFBA articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the SFBA articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo request: SEGA North America HQ

Would someone mind photographing the SEGA North America HQ? It is at:

  • 350 Rhode Island Street San Francisco, CA 94103 USA

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice

The Starhawk article was moved/renamed today to Starhawk (author) without discussion by a proponent of the new video game of the same name. Now Starhawk (and all 100 Wikilinks to her name) redirects to a disambiguation page. Please note my Requested Move discussion about moving it back to the original article title. If inspired to vote, please note Wiki policies that support this, such as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, etc. Softlavender (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Bay Area sports question - request for input

At Talk:U.S. cities with most sports champions#Metro areas linked???, we are trying to decide if the table on the article page should have separate entries for San Francisco and Oakland (and perhaps San Jose), or rather one entry for the entire Bay Area. If there is something we are missing, please leave a comment on that article's talk page. Thanks! ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

China Clipper flight departure site

Comments are invited on the discussion page for subject article about California Historical Landmark #968 and alleged duplication of coverage in articles about historic aircraft using the site.Thewellman (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

American Indian Model Schools

Should American Indian Model Schools and American Indian Public Charter School be merged? The three American Indian schools all have the same philosophy... WhisperToMe (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Request comments on Paul Shoup House

I'm a novice at wikipedia, and want to help contribute to articles in the Los Altos area. One page I started was regarding the National Register of Historic Places home Paul Shoup House. Feedback on specifics in the page that could help improve it would be appreciated. Wjenning (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I like architecture. I'll take a look at the article when I get a chance. Binksternet (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thank you. I am feeling that some descriptions of the interior are appropriate : and would add some if I knew about how much made sense. Getting verifiable sources is a challenge: but doable : if I knew what to add to the page. Wjenning (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
appreciate the comments today on the talk page for Paul Shoup House: just the type of review I needed. You're the best Wjenning (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Opening dates for the eastern Tasman West stations on the Mountain View – Winchester line

Please help out at Talk:Mountain View – Winchester (VTA)#Opening dates for the eastern Tasman West stations on this line. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed

The chart showing class and importance was broken, as someone had legitimately changed the name of the categories from SFBA to San Francisco Bay Area, but this change was not reflected in this charts editing. i made an effort to edit the source of this chart, and seemed to have succeeded. If, for any reason, i should not have done this (maybe theres an automated process for this which does it properly), my apologies, but it does seem fixed now. before, all the items were redlinked.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

My fix was apparently reverted by a Bot. i informed the bot operator and the task force that maintains the template this is derived from. i have absolutely no skill at bots, programming, etc, i just know that our template here is broke, and i dont think i did it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment still not fixed

This is the correct page to use, and i have no idea how to have the task force page access this one instead of the current one, which results in redlinks: User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/San Francisco Bay Area. The incorrect page, which is what is being used, is User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/SFBA. I hope someone can fix this.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.135.200 (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

yahoo! i may have fixed it! dont ask me to repeat this.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.135.200 (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Template

I created Template:San Francisco Bay watershed for topics related to the water bodies of the bay, rivers, streams, crossings, history. the streams section is not organized yet, not sure how to do it: region, tributaries, alpha. Maybe I should remove all the streams that dont empty directly into the bay, to make it more manageable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Listing just the ones that empty directly makes sense to me. Else we could end up listing every little stream that eventually feeds the Sacramento River. —Stepheng3 (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
That was my thought after creating it as well. I will remove the links for all the streams that dont empty into sfb.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Request on Tagged article

There is a stalemate in discussion with the Tagged social media article. Any advice, contributions or general help from editors of this project would be greatly appreciated. Thanks NCSS (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Olympic Valley - Squaw Valley Naming Issue Discussion

I would like to create a discussion on the naming of the Placer county unincorporated area that is Olympic Valley. In Wikipedia it is referred to as Squaw_Valley,_Placer_County,_California. This community should be called Olympic Valley, as that is the official name. You will also notice that Placer County, California also refers to this article as Olympic Valley, not Squaw Valley. Squaw Valley is the name of a ski resort that is located in this valley. If you guys feel this is not under the jurisdiction of the SF Bay Area, please suggest a more relevant location for this discussion and ask an admin to move it there. I propose this article be renamed Olympic Valley Thanks. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Placer County is outside of the San Francisco Bay Area. I suggest you take this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California. —Stepheng3 (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
will do. feel free to close and delete here. thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Tiffany Building

I wonder if anybody has more info on Tiffany Building (San Francisco)? Why did Qantas sell the building? When did the airline offices vacate? When did the Australian consulate vacate? Why was the building named after Tiffany and Co.?

I noticed the building upon finding out that Cathay Pacific moved its US HQ in here... WhisperToMe (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

One Maritime Plaza

Does anybody have any photos of One Maritime Plaza? It is where Del Monte Corporation has its HQ WhisperToMe (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I may have to head that way next week. If so, I will stop and snap a couple shots if no one else has posted any by then. Wyvern t (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Alright. If you do take photos, please let me know :) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Homelessness in San Francisco

I found:

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

San Francisco Bay Area AfD'd discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Revisiting AfD. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

this archived page doesnt show any SFBA related deletion discussions. please, when linking to talk pages that are archived, make it a URL type link.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

SF Bay Area Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon needs your input

We are trying to decide on a location and date. Please participate in this survey! Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Jose Vargas

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#Immigration status. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Food

I'm not sure if anyone wants to make an article on the cuisine of San Francisco, but I found:

A copy on webcitation is at Wikipedia:Resource requests WhisperToMe (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Best bet would be "Food in the San Francisco Bay Area", or "Food in California" which would take in local agriculture, california cuisine, SF hot spots, berkeleys gourmet ghetto, all the ethnic variety, and native foods.(Mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.255 (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Pi in the Sky

I'm looking for a photo. Did any of you see numbers in the sky? Did you take a snapshot? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Dang! I was rushing out the door and didn't pause for a shot. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Alcatraz inmates

Category:Alcatraz inmates, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Inmates of Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Article Reassessment Help

Hi, if anyone can help me I would be very appreciative. I am trying to get the Touro University California article reassessed. It is currently ranked C class and believe it is now ready to potentially be promoted to a B class article. It probably needs a bit more work before it's GA status. You can reach me on my talkpage anytime, thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look. It's still a C, IMO. -Stepheng3 (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Why? When it was ranked C it was about 1/4 the size of the current article so that's a dramatic improvement in quality. What more is needed to bring it to B? Specifics are appreciated, thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Major omissions include academic ranking(s), cost of tuition, and non-academic organizations and student government (or noting the lack thereof, if there are none). In my opinion, in order to "reasonably cover" the topic the article should say a little more about the campus and its unusual setting, about the demographics of the student body—more than just their GPAs and state residency—, and also about the administration—more than just the names of the president and provost. A photograph of some significant campus building, while not strictly required for B-class, would greatly strengthen this article. For an example of a strong B-class university article, see Pennsylvania State University. If you disagree with my assessment, feel free to reassess the article yourself—I won't revert you.
That said, I'm impressed by how much you've expanded this article. My (unsolicited) advice is not to get too hung up on the ratings—do what you can for this article, then move on to another topic. The ratings are highly subjective, poorly maintained, and seldom provide any meaningful external validation of one's efforts. Cheers! -Stepheng3 (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Appreciate the feedback, I'll see if I can make any of those improvements (some of that information is not readily available) and I haven't been able to put a picture up (I don't have one but copyright issues and all of that would be problematic anyway). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

New importance rating

WP has used Category:Bottom-importance articles for a while now, and i am curious why its so rarely used. I think it would be appropriate here and at the California task force.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Haha! That's a great classification; first I've heard of it. Very useful. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I know it would be a huge headache to implement, but articles on people born in the Bay Area with no notable history here, or who retired and died here, could go in this group.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
And, of course, a category to place Kim Kardashian articles in:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

To do

I just noticed that we have hundreds of Start and Stub SFBA articles with no assessment. For a native, assessing as top, high, mid, or low is fairly easy. Ive done it for the GA, B and C articles, and a few of the start and stub.(Mercurywoodrose)76.232.10.255 (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

We are down to fewer than 1000 unassessed articles, and fewer than 250 start class unassessed. Of course, there are an unknown number of sfba articles not tagged as such, so the actual number unassessed is much higher (probably at least 500-1000 not tagged that should be).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
all start class articles now assessed. Stub class is at 650. many of these will become Start once looked over and assessed. I plan to finish this within the next month.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
All Stub class articles now assessed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sausalito/Marin City photo requests

Are there Wikipedians who can get to Sausalito/Marin City easily? If so, I have photo requests for the public school system Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Whats left

All the stub and start class articles are now assessed (most of course were low importance). there are about 1,000 or more articles on academics, primarily UC Berkeley and Stanford, which i believe are not even added to the project yet (but are categorized as UC/Stanford profs). this based on starting through the list of ucb faculty, where most were not in the project (or in the UC project, which is inactive). many of the other categories i have checked, but there are of course a lot of stragglers. I just found that Mark Twain was not in the project, a huge oversight. Ive also fixed up some of the category headings for the project, and improved the assessment page.

I have a really big question: do articles here automatically get combined with the US Wikiproject? that project includes the less notable states within its umbrella, but ours, like some other states, have stand alone projects, and very few of our articles are crosscoded for WPUSA. I will add WPUSA to our FA, GA ,A B articles at some point, but i hope this organizational issue has been addressed somewhere.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed all High, and Mid importance articles of Stub class, to see if they were ready for Start (or C) class designation. many were.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

the New Article link has been unreviewed since its earliest lists. i have begun to review all the new articles that showed up as possibly sfba related, and am categorizing them or placing the sfba project banner on their talk page if missing. its a lot to go through. many of the articles which qualify have not been categorized/added.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You're quite a busy contributor! —Stepheng3 (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but i have heard of this new possible article topic, the real world, and i may do some research on it, to see if its notable. Hopefully i won't have to do actual legwork on this one, sounds scary. Not sure if its a brand name/proper noun, and if so, is the "The" part of its name. maybe the Beatles Wikiproject can help me to clarify its name:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Hahaha! Grinworthy. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Montage

I was wondering the opinions of a montage for the San Francisco page. Here is one I have selected off of wiki commons. I was wondering your opinion on a montage for SF. Should we:

A) Use my selected montage

B) Use a better montage or have me or someone else create a better montage to use

C) Keep the current picture

Selected montage.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollack man34 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend that anyone interested in commenting on this image as a new one for the SF article go to the active discussion at the SF article. lets not split the commentary. However, i have no problem with being notified at this project page of the proposal.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

page count

Now at 9000. It should be relatively easy to make it to 10000.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

9,300.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
9,400.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
9,500.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
9,600.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
9,700.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
9,800.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
9,923.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
10k.(new articles from jan 2012 through july 26, 2012 checked)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Historic perspective: in August 2007, the count was Regular content (all pages) (count: 2600) Articles (count: 2402). February 2007: Regular content (count: 560) Articles (count: 556).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested articles

I have put together a list of requested articles for California, with some of the SFBA requests broken out. list is at Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Requested Articles, and i linked it at the Cali project and on our page.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Jose Antonio Vargas

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#Blanking of content verified by multiple reliable sources. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. This is why I dread working on BLPs. —Stepheng3 (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if such a notable event such as was removed would have been removed if it was about Rush Limbaugh or a conservative biography article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Internship with the Wikimedia Foundation

Hi, I'm Gnom from Hamburg, Germany. I'm a trainee lawyer and I'm going to spend the months of July through September as an intern with the legal department of the Wikimedia Foundation. I usually only edit the German Wikipedia, so you probably haven't seen my name around here a lot. I've never been to California, so I'm greatful for how much information you guys have put together - I've been going through some of the articles you're looking after in the past few days. I'm looking forward to maybe meeting some of you if you plan to do a Meetup some time during the summer. Anyway, just in case someone knows of a room I can rent in the said period, please let me know! Cheers, --Gnom (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's my craigslist ad. Cheers, --Gnom (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I still haven't been lucky, so here's my new ad - it would be greatly appreciated if you could help me out! Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you smoke? If so, that will limit the options. How important is the Lower Haight location? Other spots are good, too. I see many available studios and small apartments available on www.airbnb.com – the prices are between $2000 and $6000 per month. (Here is the $2000 place but the bed looks small.) Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Maybe I should add that I don't smoke. I hadn't checked airbnb so far, maybe that's a good idea. The internship is unpaid though, so we won't be able to afford $6000 a month. Lower Haight isn't important at all but Craigslist made me choose one area... --Gnom (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Have you considered looking outside of "The City"? Cost of rent drops when you look at the East bay or down in the Peninsula, and it is in driving distance of "The City" or you can take BART or CALTRAIN into "The City". There are places on the peninsula that start around $1300/month. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very nice of you! Since I won't have a car and no experience with SF public transport, I had only been looking for places on the peninsula so far. --Gnom (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
It's been more than a decade since I have lived on the Peninsula, but public transit is very accessible in the San Francisco Bay Area, I would say one of the most accessible of any major metro area outside of NYC proper. Actually, look at these wikilinks: Caltrain, Bay Area Rapid Transit, and SamTrans. There are actually apartment complexes who use their proximity to public transportation networks that use that as a selling point. Also have you considered a apartment broker/agent? They get paid by the apartment owner normally so it's a service that you do not have to pay for.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Input needed at Talk:History of California

A significant discussion is underway at Talk:History of California#Dublin IP editor contributions. Additional input would be appreciated. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Mocana

I recently created an article about the (California-based) company I work for. Another user questioned the notability and neutrality of the piece, and I would appreciate any independent perspectives.--Wurtis65 (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

GAR

Zodiac Killer, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dana boomer (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_California/San_Francisco_Bay_Area_task_force/Archive_2&oldid=1148848645"