San Francisco is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 17, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 4, 2006 Good article nominee Listed August 3, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 6, 2006 Peer review Reviewed September 10, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted June 30, 2008 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. California High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5

The Chicago article prominently states this. Perhaps SF should too. see world city .:davumaya:. 15:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco is a BETA World City. It is already in the article. Personally, I'd remove this from the article. It's just boosterism and doesn't really tell you anything useful about San Francisco. It's like that press releases from NGO's that are on NPR "news" programs all of the time. --Paul (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thats what that ranking means. It is a bit of a silly ranking though the definitions are still being formed in scholar fields on globalization. It may take credence one day. .:davumaya:. 19:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sister cities? I've also noticed that in some other cities articles, such as Shanghai, there are no sister cities listed there as well. Why is that? Lady Galaxy 03:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were moved to a subarticle when this article was polished for FA status. —Kurykh 03:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Sister Cities link is available in the "City and County of San Francisco" box at the bottom of the article.

As I was going through the article, I noticed the subarticles have not yet decided on a single naming scheme. Some have "San Francisco, California" at the end (e.g., History of San Francisco, California), while others have only "San Francisco" (e.g., Culture of San Francisco). At the risk of opening a can of worms, I think we should decide on one naming scheme and stick to it, whichever it turns out to be. Naturally, this naming scheme excludes articles like San Francisco Municipal Railway, San Francisco International Airport, etc. —kurykh 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know the US uses "city, state" conventions and this argument has been overdone, but I still don't see why San Francisco can't be just at San Francisco. According to the consensus it's "City, State" unless it's one of the cities that can be written as just "City" according to the AP Stylebook, of which San Francisco is one of them. According to my (non-American) view, the San Francisco in California is literally the only San Francisco I have ever heard of. --Joowwww (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added this photo to the demographics section, as it demonstrates visually the city's Asian population and the fact that many people were born outside the U.S. (both of which are mentioned many times in the section and the article.) User:Paul.h removed it twice saying it wasn't applicable. I think it's useful and interesting. Anybody else? --AW (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The photo is notable and appropriate because of the city's large Filipino population.--Loodog (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you got a picture of the full bus, we could be able to use it on more articles :) BoL (Talk) 03:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a good photo at all. Using an ad on a bus to show SF's Asian population, you're kidding right! :) If you want to demonstrates visually about the city's Asian population, using a picture of Chinatown is even better.—Chris! _ct 04:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel the image should be added. One of the issues raised at the recent FAR was that the use of images was somewhat excessive, and the total size and number of them was reduced, so the usage of images needs to kept in check and any additions of images may need to be balanced with removing some. Also the picture doesn't quickly convey information related to the text in an accurate manner. One Tagalog bus ad doesn't really convey much, especially considered Filipino people only only account for 15% of the total Asian population and around 5% of the total city population compared to 64% and 20% for Chinese. The image wouldn't add to a readers understanding, it is somewhat difficult to read, would add to an already full set of images, and gives undue weight to a population.

If anything the population growth could be swapped for another chart representing distribution of race, languages spoken at home, or population of foreign born residents. I've thrown together two quick examples at (Image:San Francisco, CA - Languages spoken at home 2006.gif and Image:San Francisco, CA - Race w Asian subdivision (2006).gif) Also, the page Demographic maps of San Francisco, California is a collection of images. If you really want to give a more in depth profile of the diversity of San Francisco you could expand on the information presented in that article, and/or move the images into a gallery page at commons. Another you could look at is Daly City, California, where Filipinos are the largest group with 36% of the population compared to 27% for Whites and 23% for Latinos. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Optigan13, for all the reasons stated. Signs and billboards in languages other than English are quite common these days, and not just in San Francisco. --Sfmammamia (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of what I was going to say has been expertly covered by Optigan13 (talk). I agree with the points made above, especially about undue weight, and the obscure linkage between the photo and the point it supposed to be illustrating. The text doesn't mention a Filipino population nor any of the languages spoken in the city. My only additional point is that I don't see any compelling argument to change the population growth graph out for anything else, as that would mean adding a population growth table unnecessarily expanding the article.--Paul (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason the montage picture was taken down? Taifarious1 10:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some editor preferred the view from the Marin Headlands. I'm agnostic on the issue, I think both pictures are good. One, however, might be called "iconic"--Paul (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could take it or leave it with the two pictures as well. I don't think it helps that you called it Frisco in the image name (See San Francisco, California#cite note-1), so I've requested a rename on commons. -Optigan13 (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a proposal on the table to amend the Wikipedia naming conventions for US cities to follow the AP Stylebook's suggested names. This would effectively move a number of US city articles currently on the list, so San Francisco, California would be moved to San Francisco. To comment on this discussion, please go here. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In "Sports", it says there are more than 200 miles of bike lanes in the city. In "Roads and Highways", it says there are 68 miles of bike lanes in the city. The reference used is identical, although listed as separate footnotes. The reference claims more than 200 miles of bicycle routes of various style, but could perhaps be interpreted to mean only 68 miles that are bicycle-exclusive. In any case, can we come to consensus about what the correct number of bike routes is, and then come to consensus as to whether that information should be in "Sports" or in "Roads and Highways" as it clearly does not need to appear in both.--67.101.43.251 (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not confuse "bike lanes" (Class 2) with "bike routes" (class 3) both of which are different types of "bikeways" (using CA nomenclature). The third type of bikeway is the bike path (Class 1). So we just need to be clear whether we're talking about miles of Class 1, 2 or 3 bikeways, or all combined. See Segregated cycle facilities for (much) more information. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, an article about San Francisco is not the place to define these terms. Let's pick a number that reflects bike facilities in San Francisco, and only cite it once. My preference: use the 200 miles term and leave it in "Sports" and drop it from "Roads and highways".--67.101.44.240 (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not the place to define those terms, true, but it is a place to use them properly. So, it's 200 miles of what, exactly? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference describes it as a "Bicycle network" and futher lists 4 classes of bike routes. Let's say there is a 200-mile bicycle network, or let's say there are 200 miles of bike routes. Which do you prefer?--67.101.44.240 (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that the source distinguishes Class III bikeways (bike routes) with wide curb lanes from those without. That's good. Anyway, the current statement is false about 200 miles of bike lanes - the reference itself clearly states that there are 45 miles of bike lanes. And stating 200 miles of bike route would be misleading if not false too, as only 79 miles of the network are designated as Class III bike routes (with or without WCL).

What I suggest changing is this:

There are more than 200 miles (320 km) of bicycle lanes in the city ...

to this:

There are more than 200 miles (320 km) of bicycle paths, lanes and bike routes in the city ...

I would not use the word "network" because that's misleading - it's not like these paths, bike lanes and bike routes are all connected in one continuous network.

I think it's appropriate to mention bikeways in the "Sports" section rather than Transportation because all roads in San Francisco, except the freeways, are available for bicycle transportation (now, there's a viable network). It's recreational cyclists that mostly seek these types of facilities.

However, a separate Bicycling sub-section under Transportation noting this fact about all SF roads being available to bicyclists, making vehicular cycling a viable transportation option there, might be worth mentioning as well. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going ahead with the first change above; the correction in the Sports section. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]