Talk:San Francisco

New hi-res panoramic photos

Hey SF page editors, I have uploaded a couple of very high-resolution panoramic shots taken just a few days ago, maybe there's interest in using them in the article:

Market Street, San Francisco, night view

San Francisco centered around Market St

San Francisco at dusk

 podstawko  ●talk  04:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistent Source for Population Estimate

The population of San Francisco is listed for each decade, and the source is the United States Census. But at the very end of that list, rather than using the most recent United States Census Bureau estimate (which can be accessed at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/sanfranciscocountycalifornia), for some reason someone decided to trash the consistency of the list and cherry-pick a different source for the current population estimate. And the discrepancy between the official US Census Bureau estimate and that of the cherry-picked and inconsistent source is significant. Is this just local San Francisco fans cherry-picking a figure that they like better, or think paints their hometown in a more favorable light? What justifies the inconsistency? 2603:8001:8F00:79D2:14CB:EB78:526A:FB0F (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the cherry-picked source for the prior version of the estimate population (which I replaced with the most recent US Census Bureau figure to keep the list consistent) has a different and more recent estimate of San Francisco's population. So if we must be inconsistent and unjustifiably cherry-pick a different source, at least use the most recent figure from that source. 2603:8001:8F00:79D2:14CB:EB78:526A:FB0F (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I agree with you. I do not know why Wikipedia uses estimates or these so-called "guestimates" when citing the population of US cities, counties, or states. The US Census does an official count every ten year period. For these events, they send out representatives to actual count people. This event is done in every year ending in a zero, such as 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, etc. There is no reason that Wikipedia should be using estimates from any year that falls within these real counts. Just simply use the last official census count numbers, not estimates. Many times these estimates prove to be wrong once the official count is done. Not to mention, I've noticed some Wikipedia city articles give population data based on estimates, or from completely other entities than the US census itself. The only data that should be used is the every-ten-year- official US census count; nothing else. This way everything stays consistent within Wikipedia's articles. The administrator of this Wikipedia article on San Francisco keeps reverting everything back when somebody contributes something to the article, even if what they're contributing is true. 2600:8801:131C:6F00:780E:8958:D8C9:7B61 (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Question about European arrival

There seem to be two dates in conflict in the article.

One statement is: "...Spanish exploration party arrived on November 2, 1769, the first documented European visit to San Francisco Bay.'

Another is: "The mission received its name in 1776, when it was founded by the Spanish under the leadership of Padre Francisco Palóu." / "On June 29, 1776, settlers from New Spain established the Presidio of San Francisco at the Golden Gate, and the Mission San Francisco de Asís a few miles away, both named for Francis of Assisi."

Spanish must first have arrived in 1776 or earlier to have built "The Mission Dolores adobe chapel, constructed in 1776" Mission San Francisco de Asís?

Can anyone clarify?

I visited recently but don't live in the US. I am researching for something I am writing and noticed this difference. Pakoire (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The 1769 date refers to the first European exploration of the area - the Portolá expedition - while the 1776 date refers to the settlement of the area. Two different things. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cristiano Tomás thanks, yes. I think now I look at it again that I was being dyslexic with the numbers actually. It does make sense! Pakoire (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Image proposal

Hello, I've searched for suitable images for the infobox of this article and have found several options I'd like to propose for consideration:

• Image 1: File:Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco skyline from Hawk Hill at Blue Hour dllu (cropped).jpg, depiction of a panorama of San Francisco similar to the current image but with higher resolution and better contrasts
• Image 2: File:Low Fog in Golden Gate Bridge.jpg, picture captures the Golden Gate Bridge amidst San Francisco fog, with the bridge still being the main subject
  • Alternatively, I found File:Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco (40268274764).jpg or File:Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco (39168876760).jpg, both showing the bridge without fog, although they require cropping
• Image 3: File:Alcatraz 2021.jpg, view on Alcatraz Island
• Image 4: File:San Francisco at dusk.jpg, high quality image of the city skyline

I believe these options could enhance the visual appeal and contribute to the encyclopedic value of the article's infobox. Tobiasi0 (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd call this proposal unopposed and insert the images on April 28. –Tobias (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Image 1

Image 2

Image 2 alt. 1

Image 2 alt. 2

Image 3

Image 4

Tobiasi0 I've added the images to this comment as previews, hope that was OK. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 11:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

CanonNi Sure thank you, I just have to change the Alcatraz picture Tobiasi0 (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

we've discussed spamming images in the lead here before please see archive.Moxy🍁 21:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I did, and the only and first reason I found against a collage was copyrighted material or the incomplete representation of the city showing single buildings, which is not the case here, since I don't have those specific images in my proposal. Additionally, the inclusion of 3 to 4 images in the infobox is anything but 'spam'. –Tobias (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Last thing we want is the scrolling nightmare and teeny mini images like at New York City. Most readers only scroll one time that doesn't even get you halfway through the info box so really people only see the first paragraph of the New York article . 15 images in the lead is a good way to deter readership. Moxy🍁 04:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy like I said, we are talking about 3 to 4 images, not 15. I don't like the infobox images of New York City either. –Tobias (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)