Talk:San Francisco

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)

three separate settlements, in separate places:

• military
• civil
• religious

69.181.17.113 (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Image proposal

Image 1

Image 2

Image 2 alt. 1

Image 2 alt. 2

Image 3

Image 4

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)

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)

Tobias only suggested adding 4 images max. That is hardly spamming. Please don't hyperbolize the situation --haha169 (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing short of a full WP:RFC will change the single photo to anything else. Longstanding consensus is against two or more images. San Francisco page editors are generally not interested in anything else but the one photo. There is no requirement and definitely no need to make every city page fit the exact same layout. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

From the perspective of an uninvolved outsider, I much prefer what LivinAWestLife did to the current infobox with two images. The current view of the skyline captures more, but it comes at the expense of everything in the distant background (i.e. the city itself) being conspicuously blurry. The image WestLife uses captures the downtown in much better detail (and they also arguably use a better shot of the Golden Gate Bridge). It's also patently ridiculous that their change to a suitable single image afterward was called "vandalism" in the edit summary. At worst this would be disruptive editing. I would be happy to participate in an RfC, but I'd advise against against holding one for a bit since this is in the spotlight on Reddit right now, with some comments actively suggesting WP:CANVASSing. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

As the editor in question, I agree with all of your points but I would like to expand on that as well. From the article's history a version of the page with a photo montage was up for a few months in 2024 before Binksternet changed it back. That at least partly indicates most readers found it a worthwhile improvement.

I can see that the consensus was established when much discussion was made over this issue a decade ago, but in the past 5 years whenever the issue has come up it has always been a few editors, particularly Binksternet and Kurykh, who have been quick to shut down any discussion, falling back on said "longstanding consensus". Consensus can certainly change, and in fact I see more editors trying to create new infoboxes than the number rejecting them.

Either way, the current image is not the best photo to represent San Francisco, mainly because the skyline is hardly visible behind the Golden Gate bridge. Both are essential features of the city, so I would concur with you that at minimum we could feature just those 2 images and leave it at that, as capturing both adequately in a single frame would be hard.

Regarding the infobox being long: up to 5 or 6 images would not change that if the current one was already deemed long. Other major US cities have longer infoboxes that extend well into the body of the article (e.g. Miami, Chicago) but a request to have only a single image in those articles have never been seriously raised. LivinAWestLife (talk) 06:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

That's fine, but Moxy's reply was needlessly sarcastic and biting (WP:BITE) and I was just reminding them. --haha169 (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

From the article's history I can see that a version of the page with a photo montage was up for a few months in 2024 before you changed it back. That at least partly indicates most readers found it a worthwhile improvement.

I can see that the consensus was established when much discussion was made over this issue a decade ago, but in the past 5 years whenever the issue has come up it has always been a few editors, particularly you and Kurykh, who have been quick to shut down any discussion, falling back on said "longstanding consensus". Consensus can certainly change, especially as its been many years since this was really discussed at length, and in fact I see more editors trying to create new infoboxes than the number rejecting them. Literally the only pushback I see for nearly a decade is from you, Kurykh, and Moxy. Three editors is not what I'd call sufficient to establish a consensus; in this thread alone there are more people supporting a photo montage.

It also just makes me curious exactly why some people are so against this when no other city has this seen so much controversy. LivinAWestLife (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The two photos proposed are so much better than the current single image. The current single image is very ugly, in particular the ugly framing. And why are we linking to Marin on the top page of San Francisco? I don't understand how one person can rule wikipedia. If you held a vote it would be a wipeout to have a few much nicer photos than the current one. 2601:645:4200:72:7913:4CD2:F19E:7C02 (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@2601:645:4200:72:7913:4CD2:F19E:7C02 That's essentially what an RfC is for, with the exception that it isn't a pure "vote" because Wikipedia isn't a democracy. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This certainly sounds like whatever consensus was formerly here is now in question, and this issue needs to be discussed afresh to re-established a consensus opinion, one way or the other. — The Anome (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"The City" in reference to downtown alone

An edit in 2001 added a line that today appears as, "for residents of San Francisco living in the more suburban parts of the city, 'the City' generally refers to the more densely populated downtown areas around Market Street." I can find nothing in the cited sources to support this, nor could I find even an unreliable confirmation via a cursory Google search. @Member: What is the origin of this assertion? Have you got a source? Ibadibam (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

In absence of a source, I have removed this passage from the article. Ibadibam (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Concur with your removal of that inaccurate text. Thanks for taking care of that! --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Ellis Sox (1909-1989), Director (1952-1970) , San Francisco Department of Public Health

how to start article:?

Ellis Sox (1909-1989), Director (1952-1970) , San Francisco Department of Public Health

37 citations at Talk:San_Francisco_Department_of_Public_Health#"Doctor_Sox"_"San_Francisco"_"Director_of_Public_Health"

69.181.17.113 (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

free health care, hippies, drugs, diseases, other ... 69.181.17.113 (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment: Images in infobox

There has been a discussion above regarding whether more than a single image is required in the infobox. Some commenters have referred to a "longstanding consensus" against multiple images, but I see little evidence that that consensus still holds in the discussion above, other than by bold assertion.

I invite comments regarding the number of images that should be in the infobox, from both involved an uninvolved editors.

• Option 0: no image
• Option 1: only one image
• Option 2: two images
• Option 3: three or more images

Note that this is about the number of images, not the specific images to be chosen, since the number of images seems to be the primary point of contention.

I will ping all participants in the discussion above, but please note this is an attempt to establish consensus, not to push any particular point of view, and all editors are welcome to contribute. I hold no position as to the favoured option, and thus won't express my opinion.

Note also that this is a request for comment, not a WP:VOTE; please express a rationale for your position on this, rather than just chiming in. Non-specific references to "the archives" or that this "has been discussed many times" are not sufficient; please re-state your argument here.

— The Anome (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Pinging participants: @Tobias, Tobiasi0, CanonNi, Moxy, Haha169, Binksternet, LivinAWestLife, and TheTechnician27: — The Anome (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment There seems to be a substantial precedent of articles on major cities having several images in their infobox (Munich, Manchester, Boston, Chicago, London, Paris, Berlin, etc., etc. Is there one that doesn't apart from San Francisco?). The same applies to other "large" subjects, e.g. WW2, which has a well-discussed montage. This seems reasonable as any large place/subject is going to have several pictures that can represent it, with just one being insufficient. If the argument is that all those other articles should not have multiple images, then that goes against the clear consensus (actions speak louder than words) that they are appropriate. Reading the above, I find it hard to find any reasonable (to me) argument against multiple images. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 12:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 imho. I don't need 10 images either, but three or four wouldn’t do any harm as far as I’m concerned. –Tobias (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 for consistency with other major cities Dan Wang (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 without a doubt - SF's infobox should utilize the precedent for infobox montages found across city articles and language editions of wikipedia. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 3: While I acknowledge that major cities typically do have a collage-style format, namely that all 35 of the most populous US cities except #17 San Francisco have such a format, I still think it needs to be justified on a per-article basis by giving examples of six distinct landmarks (a single shot of the skyline at the top plus six landmarks below that in a 3x2 grid appears to be the unwritten standard) which can reasonably represent the city in the infobox (i.e., we shouldn't try to shoehorn in the collage if we can't first find good, highly recognizable landmarks). Therefore, I'll try to do that here. Presently with LivinAWestLife's version, we have the Financial District for the skyline and the Golden Gate Bridge for one landmark, which is a start. An obvious next choice for a landmark is Alcatraz Island. After that, I think another obvious choice is Chinatown, being the oldest in North America and arguably one of SF's most recognizable landmarks. From there, Golden Gate Park and the Palace of Fine Arts are, I think, two robust picks. For the final landmark, I was initially going to suggest Fisherman's Wharf or the painted ladies, but from an outsider's perspective, both of these seem kind of shallow as a representation of SF. I'm therefore thinking that a possible good sixth landmark is the Ferry Building. I think any collage basically has to include the Financial District, the Golden Gate Bridge, Alcatraz, and Chinatown, and I think that Golden Gate Park and the Palace of Fine Arts are very strong contenders, but I think that last slot is basically anyone's game. EDIT: possible example shown here.TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 not a kids picture book - having 10 to 15 files (because of maps and flags etc) with 8 tiny images for 4 paragraphs of information is simply crazy and a scrolling nightmare that deters readers from reading on - especially those with mobility problem Data. Best look academic not juvenile. MOS:ACCIM - in my view if the city has a world-renowned landmark there should only be the one.... San Francisco (Golden Gate bridge)... Sydney (opera House)..... Paris (Eiffel tower).... London (tower bridge) etc Simply a waste of time for content editors to have to deal with flyby spaming.Moxy🍁 15:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: Having read it, I don't see how the draft research page you linked to corresponds with a purported readership decline due to a collage. On the mobile app, the infobox is completely collapsed by default, making this basically moot. And on desktop and browser mobile – even though this absolutely is not the intention of using more than one image – having more visual information to go off of other than "here's some skyscrapers" gets me more immediately engaged with the article. I don't think we need to be 8 years old to acknowledge that the human brain is deeply attuned to visual stimuli and that, as LivinAWestLife points out below, having several major landmarks gives a more memorable visual overview of the city than just "skyline and maybe a landmark in that skyline shot". The fact for example that you specified the Tower Bridge for London instead of Big Ben/the Palace of Westminster (arguably its most iconic landmark globally) speaks to the fact that cities generally won't have just one defining landmark to represent them. Moreover, it ignores the fact that the skyline still needs to be shown, which doesn't necessarily include the most popular landmark (e.g., as you noted, the Sydney Opera House; capturing that, the Harbour Bridge, and the skyline would be technically possible but would look terrible). Can you elaborate on "driveby spamming"? I think as long as talk page consensus needs to be established for each image (and anything else can be reverted with prejudice), there's no real harm. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

TheTechnician27 it's not collapsed in mobile versions it appears after the first paragraph of the lead for everyone.... Hopefully on the right side sandwiching text as per the norm. Perhaps decline is the wrong word..... should be saying they will leave before they reach prose text (the meat and bones of why we are here - spread knowledge). As seen at "Scroll actions" we see that most only scroll a few times at best.... then venture off somewhere else to get the information they're looking for. There is also the accessibility issue of having little mini images well below the recommended size for an image. It also is a minor violation of our images MOS.... Images should be beside relevant text discussing them not just popped in there for decoration. As for a drive-by editing..... Article stewards are constantly having to correct, amend revert additions of sub part images over having one high quality stable image. Moxy🍁 16:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: I'm not familiar with the specific MOS guideline you're citing, but the ones in the infobox clearly have no issue at all with appropriate captioning – namely an identification of the landmark followed by a wikilink to the relevant article. It seems to conform perfectly well to MOS:CAPTION to me. As for calling the current image "high quality stable", I'd beg to disagree, both because 1) editors are constantly trying to change it 2) due to how bad a representation of San Francisco it is, making it neither "stable" nor, arguably, "high-quality". Again, this isn't for the sake of decoration: this is for the sake of actually giving an overview of the city. I said this below as well, but the current impression I get of San Francisco from that photo is "a red bridge with some indistinct, grey blobs in the distance". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 I not believe the current image from the Marin Headlands sufficiently captures the essence of the city by itself, but it imo does correctly identify the two elements that need to be shown more clearly: the Golden Gate Bridge and the Skyline. Currently, in an attempt to only have a single image, neither clearly represented (the skyline in particular is blurry, distant, and small). --haha169 (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 – While I am sympathetic to the argument that too many images can clutter up the beginning of an article, this is hardly an issue anyone reports for most city articles with collages of reasonable length. Generally there have been none or very few attempts to revert back to a single image once an image collage has been firmly established.

As some have mentioned there is a near universal precedent for major world cities to have several images in the infobox, and while there is no hard rule for such a precedent or a guideline for universal consistency, many will find the omission in this article odd. The purpose of these images is to showcase different aspects of the city by displaying some of its most notable landmarks, with the first image generally being a view of the city's skyline. For SF, most agree the Golden Gate Bridge should be featured in the image(s) somewhere. However there isn't a single picture that can do both the skyline and the bridge justice - a minimum of two images, one for each, would address this. Major cities are large and multi-faceted, and hence it is unreasonable to suggest that a single image could represent an entire city - the main reason why every other city article has multiple images.

Reasonable articles for major cities typically have between 4-7 images - it takes a minuscule fraction of a second to scroll past the additional photos should one wish to do so on a phone, laptop, or desktop. If the reader wants to scroll towards the body of the article, the extra length of the infobox does not push the beginning of the "Etymology" section any further down from its current position.

Lastly I will mention that some people (such as myself) may find the images useful for finding, identifying, or learning about a city's most notable landmarks, instead of having to scroll towards the tourism or cultural sections of the article. LivinAWestLife (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment – I have created a mock-up seven-image collage in my sandbox to showcase what one could potentially look like. It includes the Financial District, the Golden Gate Bridge, Alcatraz Island, Chinatown, Golden Gate Park, the Palace of Fine Arts, and a cable car on Hyde Street. I'm not completely satisfied with the picture of Golden Gate Park itself, but I think the collage represents a strong, cohesive visualization of San Francisco. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I made a collage a few months ago and it stood up for some time before being reverted by “blinkerstent” or whoever that is. Indiana6724 (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment I lived on Alameda Island in San Francisco Bay and worked in SanFrancisco. Alcatraz is a tourist destination, not a visual landmark. The Golden Gate Bridge is a visual landmark (better viewed from the Marin headland since this is for the San Francisco article). Coit Tower is impressive at night. Golden Gate Park. But only one image I've seen is emblematic for San Francisco—one of The City and bridge from Marin. The other thirty-four major cities lack such a singularly image (not even St. Louis—the top image in the collage shows one building and the arch). Consistency across very different major city articles is, to me, less important than the story told, economically, by one image. That's what an image does. A striking image draws the viewer into the article—where the story is fleshed out. On mobile devices, some of the busier images are so small that vision plays little part. Perhaps consistency is an aid to policing format, lest another infobox war erupts. I recognize this is opinion. And a judgement—required for every particle in Wikipedia. There is a constant tension between rules and judgement. So we have policies to leave room for judgement. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 18:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Neonorange: Discussing whether Alcatraz Island is technically inside of San Francisco feels like a very weak argument to me, bordering on pedantry. Even if it's a complete tourist trap, Alcatraz functions as one of the most recognizable landmarks around San Francisco (I don't understand the objection that it's "not a visual landmark" when it's a visually prominent part of the Bay and when I can say for certain as an outsider that it's one of the first things someone thinks of as a landmark there). Yes, Alcatraz is administered federally by the National Park Service. But then I'd caution you that there's another famous small island off the coast of another famous large city which is in a similar predicament: Liberty Island is not part of New York City. Instead, it's a pseudo-exclave of NYC which is actually owned by the US federal government and managed by – again – the National Park Service. But I think if you tried to protest that an image of the Statue of Liberty shouldn't be included in the NYC collage because it's "not part of New York City", you'd get some really weird looks. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 — In the just previous discussion on this talk page, Image one is not sharp. All the Image two versions show Marin County, on the other side of the bay, not San Francisco at all. Image three is Alcatraz Island and prison—it's not part of 'The City'. Image four is a beautiful image of the city business district at night, but only the TransAmerican Pyramid is emblematic. One image of the Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco seen from the Marin County headland that is sharp and with appropriate focal length for the camera. Option 1 is best introduction to San Francisco. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) —

Option 1. Nobody at all is asking for Option 0, so that's a non-starter. Option 1 has been successfully argued for many years now, in the face of multiple drive-by editors seeking to streamline Wikipedia such that every major city article has the same kind of multi-image infobox with a collage/montage/composite/mosaic whatever. The local editors don't care to conform, and have defended this choice since 2008. Relevant discussion threads include Talk:San_Francisco/Archive_5#Composite_image_in_infobox and Talk:San_Francisco/Archive_5#Composite_image_in_infobox (2008), Talk:San_Francisco/Archive_6#Photo_Montage (2010), Talk:San_Francisco/Archive_6#Infobox_montage_revisited (2011), Talk:San_Francisco/Archive_7#Montage, Talk:San_Francisco/Archive_7#Is_there_something_wrong_with_collages?, Talk:San_Francisco/Archive_7#What_is_wrong_with_this?? (2012), Talk:San_Francisco/Archive_7#Bringing_this_up_again! (2013), Talk:San_Francisco/Archive_7#Photomontage (2015), Talk:San_Francisco/Archive_7#New_Picture, Talk:San_Francisco/Archive_8#Lead_Image_Update, Talk:San_Francisco/Archive_8#Montage (2018), Talk:San_Francisco/Archive_8#Montage again, Talk:San_Francisco/Archive_8#Montage_vs_single_blurry_picture (2021), and Talk:San_Francisco/Archive_8#Multiple_image_infobox (2023). The main argument is that the infobox image is reduced in size and prominence for each new image crowded into place. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I think "streamlining" could be a weak argument here if and only if it were just made on its own, but 1) it isn't being made on its own, and 2) it absolutely does bolster Option 3's credibility that I can't think of a single major city on Earth besides San Francisco that doesn't have this in the English Wikipedia. There's a reason why this is, and it's not conformism (although arguably the specific 1/2/2/2 variant of the collage is conformism): a single image simply can't adequately give a good overview of a major city. The current image is evidence of this: the bridge is front-and-center (still not ideal because it has to share the space) while the city itself is a murky, poorly defined afterthought. It's just an extremely poor initial representation of the city as "a red bridge with some blobs way off in the distance" (and there's really no good way around this with one image). Moreover, while I acknowledge that frequent editing of a page gives an editor some level of deferential treatment due to a presumed level of expertise, it absolutely does not imply more 'ownership' than anyone "driving by". You dismiss this as a problem with "drive-by editors", yet the only edits I see from you in the past five years are sporadic reversions, most prominently ones that attempt to add more images to the infobox. This includes one where you demonstrably incorrectly refer to what LivinAWestLife did as "vandalism". In fact, according to the page statistics, Cristiano Tomás can claim substantially more authorship than you (third most contributions by character count and has had contributions from 2014–2024) and says "Option 3 without a doubt" – directly contradicting your notion that this is just random editors coming here to pressure this article to conform for the sake of conformity. To be clear, I think standing as a watchdog for an article's quality is both perfectly valid and helpful, but I think it deflates your argument that past involvement correlates to how much an opinion should matter; I think we should judge this RfC's arguments on their standalone merits, not on an ad hominem. For instance, your list of discussion links with zero context provided for any of them feels like a Gish gallop: just as an example, looking at Talk:San_Francisco/Archive_7#New_Picture this link reveals ostensibly no objection to a collage whatsoever. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk page entries with no further discussion, made by editors creating a collage, prove that this idea has not been met with approval by editors who often revert without discussing it. The "Gish gallop" list shows how often the idea is re-introduced with no resulting change in consensus. "Drive-by" editors are ones that don't wish to improve the San Francisco page specifically, but instead swing through once never to return, because their aim is to make city articles conform to a style. Such a style is not required, not by Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline and definitely not by Template:Infobox settlement which suggests a single image of the city's skyline. Binksternet (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I think a more logical explanation than a lack of wanting to be involved would be that a small handful of editors basically treat their participation in this article as ownership, deride anyone trying to change the status quo as annoying outsiders, and immediately shut down any discussion regarding a collage. For example, one of the comments from a 2013 discussion you linked reads: "As I wrote, we've been through this before. We [who's "we"?] don't want a montage, period. So just leave the infobox as it is, and find something else to do." This is so actively and needlessly hostile that why on Earth would anyone stick around to discuss it? Some consensus was reached in 2008-ish, and then from there, existing consensus was used as a cudgel for why no discussion is necessary, self-reinforcing the consensus by shutting down actual, merit-based discussion. Again, you called LivinAWestLife's introduction of a reasonable single image "vandalism" – something that directly states that they are here to intentionally try to defeat the project's purpose. The reason I'm calling your comment a Gish gallop is because you threw in literally anything no matter how weak; for example, this one which is old enough for a driver's license in most countries with exactly one participant (you) saying why you don't like the idea of a collage. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The key comment is a single image simply can't adequately give a good overview of a major city. Different people are going to have different opinions on what are the iconic images of a city. Of the suggestions listed above, I don't see anything about showing the steep hills that you get in the city. I say this not to argue for its inclusion, but to illustrate that there are plenty of potential subjects out there – which makes this city no different from any other of the other cities with several images in their infobox.
Incidentally, as a "drive by" editor, isn't that the point of a Request for Comment: to get opinions from outside the immediate group of editors who cannot reach agreement on the subject? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: I definitely agree with you about the steep hills, which I failed to express in my proposal for the six landmarks above. I fixed this in the mock-up I created. This collage features two examples of the steep streets: one in Chinatown, and another on Hyde Street with a cable car. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

There are also those old wooden houses you see in part of San Francisco (presumably survived the 1906 fire-following-earthquake?). I don't know the city well enough to explain where they are, but I am guessing you know it better than me and understand what I am talking about. Also I do not get the resistance (above) to showing places that are tourist destinations. The montages for other cities show these (London, Paris, etc.). Tourism is actually quite a significant part of the economy of major cities, and San Francisco is no exception. I have visited over half the 50 states (plus Washington DC), and in the inevitable small talk as you get to know the business you are visiting, if you ask the question: "what are the major industries here?" tourism is substantially more often than not in the immediate list given. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: You may be thinking of the painted ladies. These were massively popularized by their appearance in the opening credits of the American TV sitcom Full House. Some wikis of different languages do use them, and one thing I might try is a 1/2/2/2/1 mock-up instead of a 1/2/2/2 one – this time featuring the Golden Gate Bridge as the bottom image like LivinAWestLife tried but including e.g. the painted ladies. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: I was thinking less grand than the painted ladies, something like these examples on Steiner Street[1]. There are other places where you find bigger collections of this type of house, but without spending a few hours (remotely) wandering around the city, I doubt I will find where I am thinking of. This just further illustrates how different people have different images of the same place, so one illustration does not do the job. The image I really think you need is of the very steep streets – something pretty unique to the city. I agree this is not some grand building or monument, but it is very much integral to the place. Strangely, Commons does not appear to have a picture of Bradford Street (this[2] is striking) though there are several of Filbert Street (San Francisco). ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 09:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Concurring with you on all points - but primarily that there is no longer any real consensus besides the continued opposition from a small number of editors. LivinAWestLife (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I understand that this may be a matter of personal aesthetics, so it is difficult to quantify. However, many editors including myself have mentioned that the single image in question while framing many of the important elements of the city that we would wish in the infobox, does so poorly. The skyline is distant and blurry, and the bridge is thin and small. In an effort to capture everything in one image, the individual elements of the city are poorly represented. You keep pointing to precedent and previous consensus and the fact that there is no style guide requiring infobox collages -- but you haven't addressed the specific reason why various editors are dissatisfied with the single image in the first place. --haha169 (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Generally, people have offered their opinions that it is impossible to represent SF with only one photo, and so they've settled on an iconic shot to "capture the reader's attention", as Kurykh wrote in 2012, inspiring the interested reader to dig in further to see the other great photos throughout the article. Seaphoto said in 2012 that the single Golden Gate Bridge image with distant downtown SF has an appealing "simplicity", and Thomas.W praised "a single image of the Golden Gate Bridge, which fits SF perfectly." In 2013, Norcalal noted that the article had seen an edit-warring series of disruptive changes over having a montage, with the result of keeping the single image, which they described as "iconic". Binksternet (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this together. If I were to distill the arguments into two words, it would be "simplicity" (in the clean, minimalist sense) and "iconic". As for the latter, I don't see how an image being "iconic" means it must be the header image. I personally agree with the assessmeent of frame being iconic, but by trying to do so much it fails at visually showing the city's important elements. The ones it does so it does so poorly - again, the skyline is blurry and distant and the iconic bridge is thin and small - no details can be seen. An image being "iconic" doesn't overwrite that fact. As for "simplicity", this is a purely aesthetic choice and difficult to argue. But I'll return to my original argument that limiting the infobox to a single image for the sake of simplicity, despite the single image's various shortcomings, is doing the article and readers a disservice. --haha169 (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Binksternet: But we're not trying to be "iconic" or minimalist; this isn't an art project (although ironically it fails to be iconic by failing to properly capture its subjects and to be minimalist by trying to shoehorn two complex subjects into the same image). We're an encyclopedia attempting to be pragmatic by giving readers a broad and immediate visual overview of major landmarks (let alone just the city's skyline itself), something which this image categorically fails to do. As Moxy ironically linked to above, research shows that readership drops off dramatically after not long at all. And by the very nature of this article's images being spread out (as they should be outside the infobox), most of these landmarks are hidden under thousands upon thousands of words which most users will never scroll through. I have to scroll through over 10,000 words just to see major landmarks like Golden Gate Park and the Palace of Fine Arts. Just to see one of its cable cars on a sloped street or Alcatraz Island is over 15,000 words in, and this isn't a failure of the prose's structure; it's a failure of the infobox. To rearrange the prose to include those further up would be clunky and ridiculous, but it can be trivially done via collage as shown here. Can you seriously propose that a single image showing the Golden Gate Bridge with a murky skyline in the background is "iconic" enough to invite even 1% of readers to scroll down far enough to find even a single one of those? In fact, within this article, we have exactly two images of the Golden Gate Bridge, by far San Francisco's most iconic landmark and one of the most iconic in the US. The first one in the infobox is a compromise by trying to shoehorn in the skyline, and the second one is a compromise by nature of its main subject being Marshall's beach. This wouldn't be a problem if the infobox simply had a separate image of the bridge. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This is an interesting comment..... I don't believe people come here to look at pictures at all.... They come here to acquire knowledge as per WP:Purpose. Images are here to enhance written content (prose).... they should not be a deterrent or obstacle from acquiring knowledge MOS:IMAGEREL. It's why we have protocols and template recommendations about just this. Moxy🍁 01:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Moxy, you're implying that images do not convey knowledge. On the contrary, they convey a lot of information. The infobox images are the first thing I see when I visit a city article and they tell me about a city's appearance, architecture, and style. That's why I don't agree with the image we currently have, because it does not tell me a lot about what San Francisco looks like. Additionally, I do not understand or agree with the notion that having a few more images is an impediment from acquiring knowledge. It takes an extra millisecond to scroll past a couple extra images in the infobox - hardly a deterrent. --haha169 (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course images conveying knowledge... but over imagery is a detriment to any website. It's why we have recommendations and why the academic community has to publish things like the following."How (not) to use images". McGill university. Moxy🍁 02:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

No editor here is seriously advocating to turn the infobox into a geocities or myspace website of yesteryear (the LingsCars.com example in your link). Since the beginning of this discussion, you have been exaggerating the position of editors seeking to expand the number of images as if we are seeking to turn the infobox into a child's scrapbook with "15 images". Let's be real, the proposed two or three images is not "over imagery". And the proposals do not look anything close to the examples in the linked McGill article, which also doesn't serve as Wikipedia policy. --haha169 (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: 1) McGill University's Web Services are not and have nothing to do with Wikipedia guidelines. This has gotten completely off-track. 2) Even if they were (they aren't), you'll note that most examples of good image layout in the article effectively use several images side-by-side to convey something. 3) It feels like a persistent issue in this discussion where you keep bringing up miscellaneous standards (without regard for applicability) and trying to argue (often just linking to them without quoting any relevant passage to avoid easy and direct falsifiability) that they show that Option 3 is bad. Then when it's explained that these standards have been wildly misinterpreted against a collage and that it absolutely conforms to them (while ironically, Option 1 often doesn't), you don't address this argument against your point. Instead, you retreat with zero acknowledgement onto the same exact argument but this time clumsily cited to another random standard you found, and I'm hoping this pattern doesn't continue. Thus far, you have cited MOS:ACCIM (entirely irrelevant), WP:PURPOSE (which you erroneously claim this undermines), MOS:IMAGEREL (which not only doesn't say this but actively supports Option 3 against Option 1 in several key statements), and now McGill University Web Services (which, even if it were applicable, would demonstrably not contravene Option 3). If you're going so far as to argue that a collage goes against existing style guidelines (while consensus formed among highly experienced editors on effectively every other article for every major city on Earth – including, I'll add, every featured article for a major city – begs to differ), then please choose one or two concrete ones from this website to put forth and commit to them, because this is becoming ridiculous and extremely tedious. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It's strange to cite MOS:IMAGEREL like this. Firstly because one of its most notable features is an example of an image that captures two subjects but fails to adequately aid in the understanding of either – an exaggerated version of the exact problem the current infobox image suffers from. It's strange to cite WP:PURPOSE like this, because images are so notoriously useful in educating that they're one of the four pillars of a featured article. But it's especially strange to cite both of these guidelines together. You're arguing that pictures violate WP:PURPOSE by "being an obstacle from acquiring knowledge" (which is just a weird stance when the human visual cortex is so deeply interconnected with learning), but then you're simultaneously linking to MOS:IMAGEREL which says the literal exact opposite right at the start – that they're "often an important illustrative tool to understanding." IMAGEREL of course says that images shouldn't be primarily decorative, but these categorically aren't. You've concocted a strawman that those voting Option 3 want the collage because of some sort of conformist beautification effort, when in reality the consistent and entirely pragmatic line of argument has been that a single image simply can't adequately give a good overview of a major city and that the existing image is therefore a poor aid for reader comprehension. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Time sink that is a net negative for content.....your free to ignor all our recommendations and spam images if you like to worsen our readers accessibility to content. Wikipedia:Alternatives to ignoring all rules

• MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE ="However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting.
• WP:GALLERY = "In articles that have several images, they are typically placed individually near the relevant text....A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article,
• WP:NOTGALLERY ="If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic. context,
• MOS:IMAGELEAD = :they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see ".
• WP:UNDUE = "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery".....
• ,MOS:IBP = The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article..The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose,"
• ,MOS:LAYIM = "Try to harmonize the sizes of images on a given page in order to maintain visual coherence."
• Template:Infobox settlement = "Primary image representing the settlement. "Moxy🍁 06:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Moxy, this response feels like you are just inundating us with cherry picked quotes from as many Wiki policies as you can find to see what sticks. I don't say this lightly, but I am frustrated by your lack of response to the substantive concerns brought up by editors in this RfC; rather you just make hyperbolic statements (mischaracterizing what editors want changed and exaggerating the scale of the proposals) and then post links to policies or external sites that often are mutually contradictory or are unrelated to the issue at hand.

For example, LAYIM and the harmonizing of image sizes has nothing to do with this discussion. Neither does GALLERY, NOTGALLERY, or UNDUE which are about other issues entirely. There is no undue weight with including clearer images in the infobox, and infobox collages are not an image gallery. The quotes you selectively cite from other policies such as IMAGELEAD and IMAGERELEVANCE in reality take no stance either way related to multiple images in the infobox. Another editor has already explained how your citing of IMAGEREL is actually counter to your argument, and yet your response is to throw out more policies.

I have spent my last several responses to you directly addressing the points you make, while I have yet to read a response from you addressing the crux of the concerns of editors here: that the single image does not visually show what San Francisco is, and it does a poor job of showing even the elements that it does show (bridge and skyline). Many editors, including myself, have already explained that they feel that this singular image does not adequately capture San Francisco due to the shortcomings already explained, such as a distant and blurry skyline and a small and thin bridge. Please directly address this. --haha169 (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Example of an academic presentation [3]... Moxy🍁 07:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Sigh... You're doing the same thing again --haha169 (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Cant rebut much if you believe every community recommendation on images has no barring on images in an infobox....why do we even have them is what I am wondering.

Moxy🍁 08:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The policies you are citing do not explicitly say that only one image is allowed in the infobox. To distill all the policies into a single sentence, they are guiding editors to choose a method that clearly and cleanly captures the essence of be representative of the article topic with as little extraneous additions as possible. You are so laser focused on the latter point that you forget that the infobox must be balanced with something that is representative of the topic. And to repeat myself for the fifth time, hopefully with a response this time, I and many others do not believe the current image does so because the skyline is blurry and distant and the bridge is thin and small, with no details visible. Other aspects that are representative of the city are missing, such as the unique streetscape, parks, and architecture. Please respond.

Relatedly, the Brittanica article of San Francisco that you link is a good example for why a single image for a city encyclopedia article fails at its job of being representative of the topic. At a first glance, one would think it was an article about the Golden Gate Bridge! --haha169 (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

To me its just common sense not to have 14 files in any lead - 8 tiny pictures you cant really see (over a few that could be visible) - nice flag and seal - plus 4 maps and 2 small flag icons. Its clear not all agree. If a new image would be better thats great. Its to bad cities dont follow countries article format. Done here!! Moxy🍁 14:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

You're counting the tiny USA and CA flag icons to arrive at 14 pictures in the infobox? Well I appreciate you laying it out if only so that I now understand your logic. I'm actually ok with removing the two tiny flag icons, I don't believe it is standard to have them there. Regardless, from reading your comment, what you're really opposed to is having 8 images in a collage. I'd like to reiterate again that 8 images is not reasonably an impediment to knowledge (they can be scrolled past very quickly) and they do not create clutter when done tastefully. (I'm a fan of how Ottawa looks, personally.) I voted for Option 2 however, with just two images but I am also fine with a larger collage. I just don't think a single image can be representative of this city, and I don't think the image chosen is enough.

As for why cities don't follow country format, it's because the vast majority of cities either don't have flags or their flags are virtually unknown/unrepresentative of the city. Country flags are pretty universally used to represent their nation, but cities aren't even close to that. You could make an argument for the flag of a place like D.C., or Chicago. But the San Francisco flag is not even close to that level of acceptance - hence, cities cannot follow the country model. --haha169 (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy: Wow... I pointed out a tendency to basically retreat to random policies and politely asked you to return with one or two that actually make sense, and you've returned with a Gish gallop of literally every other policy you could find that you can vaguely and clumsily misconstrue to be relevant to this issue. I think I speak for both Haha169 and myself when I say this is immensely frustrating and indicates a complete lack of respect for either of our time. Moxy, you're an experienced editor with over 120,00 edits, so I don't think I have to point out, for example, that WP:UNDUE is about balancing viewpoints on a topic proportional to how they're covered in reliable sources as a whole. In each case, the way you've cited now ten policies and guidelines amounts to some of the most nonsensical wikilawyering I've seen in over seven years here. In assuming good faith, I'm instead forced to assume complete and utter incompetence in parsing these basic guidelines. I'm absolutely stunned, and I hope that any closing editor will recognize how wholly absurd this line of argument is and disregard it entirely. It's extremely disappointing that both main proponents of Option 1 are using two separate Gish gallops as their main tool to reinforce their position – one by linking to literally any discussion that's ever taken place regardless of its merit, and one linking to literally any guideline regardless of its relevance. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, pinging three currently uninvolved, active editors who all either agree with your stance or at least agreed with it 12 years ago under the guise of quoting them – while not doing the same for even a single one who argued for the collage – feels a lot like backdoor WP:VOTESTACKing. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

What a foul comment. I was asked why people were so fond of the one image, and I answered. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I apologize; that was rude to assume intentionality. It nonetheless absolutely does function as votestacking to ping multiple uninvolved editors from long-past discussions selected solely from their agreement with your position, even if ?entirely unintentional. I think any editor experienced with discussions should understand why that isn't appropriate. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 I think something like the infobox on New York City would be nice. San Francisco has way more recognizable and relevant landmarks than just the Golden Gate. Leijurv (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 to align with overwhelming consensus on every other major U.S. city article, and to properly present San Francisco in a way that cannot be summed up by a single image. SF has more than just one iconic landmark (even if the Golden Gate is overwhelmingly the most recognizable) and the city's other aspects deserve coverage as well; my suggestion is a mix of the Golden Gate Bridge, downtown skyline from Twin Peaks or another distant viewpoint, the Painted Ladies, a cable car, and the Ferry Building. SounderBruce 10:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 3. Agree with others that San Francisco has many landmarks, and a single image cannot possibly represent them all. Also noting the stats that San Francisco is one of the few major cities without a collage: even some smaller cities with population less than 1 million have one (Malacca City, Kurume, Hsinchu etc). Definitely not 10 images (as someone has suggested), but 5-7 is a good number for me. As for Option 1 has been successfully argued for many years now argued by someone above, community consensus can change, and as it appears is also changing here. S5A-0043^Talk 10:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Many landmarks? Which would you select? Fingers of fog sliding between the peaks, eventually to blanket the city lowlands? That's my favorite, — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 11:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC) —

Option 3 - While the current picture is good, I don't think it truly captures the variety of San Francisco as a city. As far as I can tell, every other city of equivalent size has a set of images rather than a single one, and I haven't seen any convincing arguments as to why San Francisco should be an exception to this. I also don't really think that some of the previous discussions represent a consensus per se - rather, it seems to be some editors acting as though they WP:OWN the article and dragging it out until others give up - but regardless of that, WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE and those past discussions don't really have much bearing on what we're currently dealing with. Other than, of course, this discussion seemingly having a lot of similar behaviours cropping up around ownership and canvassing as have been seen in the past. Turnagra (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 - San Francisco is a city with many landmarks which cannot be summed with just one. Avgeekamfot (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Request – @The Anome: With the understanding that this would still let the RfC play out for at least the remainder of the (typical) 30 days, I was wondering if, now 10 days into the RfC, I might be able to publish Option 3 in the article before the end of the RfC and simply revert it back should the RfC trend heavily back against support for this option. Thus far, this RfC has seen 16 participants, and of those:

• Nobody (0) has expressed support for Option 0 (basically just a formality).
• Binksternet, NeonOrange, and Moxy (3) have expressed support for Option 1.
• Haha169 (1) has expressed support for Option 2 and has stated they don't see Option 3 as problematic.
• Tobiasi0, Dan Wang, Cristiano Tomás, TheTechnician27 (myself), LivinAWestLife, Leijurv, SounderBruce, S5A-0043, Turnagra, and Avgeekamfot (10) have expressed support for Option 3.
• ThoughtIdRetired and Indiana6724 (2) have not formally voted but have expressed what appears to be support for Option 3.
• Moxy has additionally expressed concern that Option 3 violates at least 10 different guidelines and policies. Because of that, I would not normally ask this, but I believe Haha169 and I have completely erased reasonable doubt that any of their stated concerns are rooted in the actual meaning or language of any of these. I similarly believe they are the only one who has argued that Option 3 contravenes existing guidelines/policy.

Thus, implementing Option 3 while the RfC continues to play out seems to be of no harm (no guideline/policy violations) while abiding by the consensus that seems to be firmly establishing itself thus far. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this is obviously fine. The WP:WIKILAWYERING (citing a dozen different guidelines) is indeed unpersuasive, especially when practically all comparable articles (including featured articles) have an infobox gallery. It is exceedingly obvious that there is not, actually, any broader consensus or guideline against cities having photomontages in the infobox, and this RfC can be snow closed. Leijurv (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a good summary above, and I agreee that there certainly seems to be a clear consensus right now for option 3. I think we should let the discussion run for, say, another four days to make it two whole weeks and give time for responses to this closure proposal, and unless anything significant happens to change that, I would be minded to close the discussion at that point. — The Anome (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 (arriving from WP:RFC/A) - Precedent has been established in other city articles, and having multiple images to get a representative view of what the city looks like has been shown to be beneficial to the article. I would also like to add that mobile use is not hindered, as the app collapses infoboxes and prevents too much information from being displayed on the small screen at once. In direct response to the multiple style guides and policies that talk about not using too many images, I would like to re-iterate the point that these style guides and policies do not state an exact number of what is too many... that it supposed to be left up to the editors to discuss. Citing these as policy reasons to not have more images is actually circular reasoning-- policy is to not have more images than are necessary as decided by the editors. This RFC and other discussions are what determine the amount that is appropriate. If you're going to say we shouldn't have more images, you're going to need to cite a policy other than one that says, paraphrased, "figure it out like civilized adults and don't go overboard". And all policies cited so far have said, paraphrased, basically that. Fieari (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)