Wikipedia talk:WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Archive 1 Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject San Francisco |
|
|||
Project Navigation Links | |||
---|---|---|---|
Main project page | talk | ||
Portal | |||
Watchlist | talk | ||
Members | |||
Departments | |||
→ Assessment | talk | ||
→ Collaboration | talk | ||
→ Jumpaclass | talk | ||
→ Translation | talk | ||
→ Peer review | talk | ||
Useful links | |||
Infoboxes and templates | |||
Open tasks | talk | ||
Project category | talk | ||
Relevant categories | |||
Userboxes | talk | ||
edit · changes |
[edit] 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
[edit] 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: When the two finally get merged, I recommend archiving Wikipedia talk:WikiProject San Francisco and putting it here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area/Archive 1. Peter G Werner 23:26, 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)
- Comment: Well, its been about a week and the consensus is to merge – should we go ahead and do it, then? Peter G Werner 01:29, 29 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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:
- San Bruno Mountain and San Bruno Mountain State Park
- Mount Tamalpais and Mount Tamalpais State Park
- Point Reyes and Point Reyes National Seashore
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)
- Well, size is somewhat controllable by moving edits from one article to another, where appropriate. Peter G Werner 09:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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
- Improving shorter articles up to Good article standards
- Improving lorger articles up to Featured article status
- 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.
- Creating stubs for 'missing' articles
- 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Invitation and Welcome templates
I created a template for inviting new participants:
There's also a "Welcome" template for those who to join:
{{SFBA Welcome}}
Hi, WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area, and welcome to WikiProject 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:
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)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
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)
- As the primary user who has been creating, editing, and maintaining all of the California county navigation boxes for the past couple of years, I am still unclear about what the objection is. As Physicq210 said, all of these templates list the cities and unincorporated areas within each indicated county. Because San Francisco is a consolidated city-county, there is no need to create a county template like that one. In addition, I feel that Template:Neighborhoods of San Francisco is more similar to the other CA city boxes, not the county templates, and should be listed as such. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- As stated on WP:PROJ, the purpose of this and all other WikiProject pages is "devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia". If someone is researching the actual list of the nine Bay Area counties, they should look at the main article space instead. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:30, 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:
- City and County of Denver
- City and County of Honolulu
- City and County of Philadelphia
- City and County of Swansea (an example not in the U.S.A. but in Wales.)
- — 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)
- Ok, if there is consensus that Template:Neighborhoods of San Francisco should also be listed as a county template, then so be it. But if that is the case, I would also like to move it to Template:San Francisco, California so I can add colleges, universities, and parks like other users have done with Template:San Diego County, Template:Mendocino County, California, and Template:Contra Costa County, California. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:56, 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)
- After thinking about all of the comments made so far, I have taken the liberty of designing a new Template:San Francisco, which is sort of modeled after Template:Denver, etc. Free free to make alterations. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:42, 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Importance assessment?
SFBA articles |
Importance | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Top | High | Mid | Low | None | Total | ||
Quality | |||||||
FA | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | |||
A | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||
GA | 2 | 9 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 21 | |
B | 19 | 73 | 101 | 52 | 31 | 276 | |
Start | 7 | 109 | 324 | 441 | 296 | 1177 | |
Stub | 1 | 48 | 184 | 911 | 656 | 1800 | |
List | 1 | 13 | 19 | 8 | 41 | ||
Assessed | 31 | 243 | 633 | 1424 | 992 | 3323 | |
Unassessed | 1 | 5 | 6 | ||||
Total | 31 | 243 | 633 | 1425 | 997 | 3329 |
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)
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)
[edit] 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)
-
-
- 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)
-
[edit] SF meetup
Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco 2. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 21:31Z
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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).
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)
- 22 September 2007 - expires 27 September
- Ghostown, Oakland, California (PROD by User:Chrishomingtang; PROD nominator states: "Unreferenced, possible OR" Excerpt: "Ghostown is a section of West Oakland in Oakland, California.") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Lower Bottoms, Oakland, California (PROD by User:Chrishomingtang; PROD nominator states: "Unreferenced, possible OR" Excerpt: "The Lower Bottoms is the Oakland Point neighborhood of West Oakland in Oakland, California.") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oakland Point, Oakland, California (PROD by User:Chrishomingtang; PROD nominator states: "Unreferenced, possible OR" Excerpt: "Oakland Point, terminus of the first transcontinental railroad (and one of the most intact Victorian districts in the state), was a thriving socially and ethnically mixed neighborhood from the start.") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- 21 September 2007 - expires 26 September
- Gallinas Valley, California (PROD by User:Zzyzx11; PROD nominator states: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed – there is little or no cited content on how this may be significant to warrant its own article." Excerpt: "The Gallinas Valley is a geographical feature of Marin County, California.") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Longwood Gardens, Oakland, California (PROD by User:Chrishomingtang; PROD nominator states: "Unreferenced and possible OR" Excerpt: "The Longwood Gardens, also known as the 6-5 Vill, is located on 65th and International, and is one of the only major housing projects in East Oakland, California.") --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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:
- Has this ever been tried?
- If this works, is there any place (other than this wikiproject, the obvious choice) where such a standing agreement would officially be kept?
- 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)
[edit] Article for Deletion: October 2007 Alum Rock earthquake
October 2007 Alum Rock earthquake at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/October 2007 Alum Rock earthquake (2007-10-31 –)
-
- --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article for Deletion: Alum Rock earthquake
Alum Rock earthquake at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alum Rock earthquake (2007-10-31 –)
- appears to be technical information about the 2007 Alum Rock earthquake
- --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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
[edit] New photo request category
Please see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in San Francisco County, California. GregManninLB (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Chapter
I am looking into starting Wikimedia California. Anyone interested? Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)