Talk:San Francisco Public Library

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Libraries Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Behaviour at the SFPL?[edit]

Has anyone here noticed an increase in library violence? This had gotten attention in SF Examiner and other local newspapers in recent years, so much so that library officials had vowed to take action. So far, I haven't seen much evidence of this promise. I stopped going to the SFPL several months ago because of arguments and disputes over such trivial matters as computer use. Then I go to the Noe Valley branch for the first time either this past Friday or the previous one (August 12), and an altercation breaks out immediately upon opening between an infuriated woman and another patron who had already reserved the computer. She lost the argument, of course, but kept going on which was annoying not only to the adults but also the children who were trying to spend some quality time with their parents. Reminders by the head librarian and other patrons there to keep quiet weren't quite effective either, as she turned up the notch. What the heck is going on, why and does such bad behaviour persist at the lib.? Has anyone else encountered such problems at the SFPL? Hopefully someone else (other than myself) will have complained, and they’ll take care of the situation ASAP. In the meantime, I’ve stopped going there indefinitely.

Mike MikePpess (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By any chance, would the perpetrator happen to be a darkish, Caucasian female in her mid-20's with hair fixed straight back and always fumbling with her cell phone? I've seen somebody at Sally Brunn fitting that description giving others a hard time on more than one occasion. She would always try to log in at a computer already reserved for other users, and be enraged when that person shows up and notifies her that they have it booked... The rules and regulations are clearly stated on the library's FAQ file...This individual has got to be either deficient in the IQ department or psycho, which leaves the question of security. Library officials claim that the number of violent acts have decreased, with only 28 complaints reported within the past year. I beg to differ, as many incidents go unreported for each one reported. Most people don't want to deal with it, either because it's not worth their time or they're afraid to get involved in something that they shouldn't. I also believe that many of these incidents are committed by repeat offenders, and not isolated. If only appropriate action were taken against the violators, the library would become a much safer and pleasant place to be. Having security officers roam the branches for an hour or so during business hours would be a great help. They should also do away with walk-in logins, and require everyone to register whether it be 2 days or seconds ahead of time. Then there wouldn't be any reason for anyone sitting at a reserved workstation other than to cause trouble.67.115.155.101 (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate move of SFPL[edit]

In a relentless media campaign, the public was told that the new library would hold more books, move patrons through faster, and be more high tech. In fact, it held fewer books, moved patrons through slower, and could have been easily retrofit for wifi and ethernet the way other libraries around the country have been. The press briefly covered these facts and picked a single person who was an SF outsider to blame. The collection was not "weeded" as Baker was referenced, it was gutted: rarer, timeless books that only a community library would have on gardening, hobbies, home repair, canning food, etc. were sacrificed so that the stacks could be filled with duplicates of university holdings and best-sellers (e.g. Danielle Steele). For example, see http://articles.latimes.com/1996-09-03/news/ls-40094_1_san-francisco-public-library and http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1996/10/14/1996_10_14_050_TNY_CARDS_000375994

The real issue got lost in the territorial defensiveness and name-calling -- the move was unnecessary and counterproductive.

Catalogues[edit]

Catalogues

http://books.google.com/books?id=bAYDAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22San+Francisco+Public+Library%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wHnwUL-2NrC10AGMsIHoDQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=zI4xAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22San+Francisco+Public+Library%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wHnwUL-2NrC10AGMsIHoDQ&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=2bo_AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Lists

http://books.google.com/books?id=WyNHAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22San+Francisco+Public+Library%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wHnwUL-2NrC10AGMsIHoDQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging the main library article back into this article[edit]

Hi User:Another Believer and anyone else interested - possibly User:Takikawa, User:Al83tito, and User:Mliu92 as a few other recent editors!

I was reading this article and saw Main Library (San Francisco) got forked into its own article in October 2018. As a reader, I believe that this article could tell a more coherent story of the SFPL if that article got merged back into this primary article as a section. The SFPL is very much a multi-branch library, but the stories of the old and new main library buildings are central to the story of the whole system.

For example, I'd like to write about some of the more recent history of the library, such as the teen center, history exhibits, and events that use the expanded areas of the new main branch, and I would like to provide that section to the reader in the context of both the criticism about book weeding in the new main branch (in the secondary article) and the strong overall taxpayer funding of the library (in the primary article). Right now, I seem to have to pick one or the other article, but to me, it's one story. I don't think the article would get too long if these got merged. Any thoughts? Dreamyshade (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamyshade, I'd prefer to keep the Main Library (San Francisco) forked out and expanded with information specific to the building (such as architecture, etc), but I will let others weigh in as well. I assume there are ways to summarize the history of the main library within the parent article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Part of what I'm seeing is that it seems difficult to extract the story of this building (such as its architecture) from the rest of the story of the library -- for example, the fact that a City Librarian was forced to resign because of choices tied to the architecture of the space! I do think we can summarize main points with a longer secondary article, but with the current content that has been relatively stable over the past few years, seems worth reviewing this. No rush though, happy to see what other people think. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]