Talk:San Francisco Bay Area

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ginelli (talk | contribs) at 04:57, 29 July 2010 (→San Francisco v San Jose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:57, 29 July 2010 by Ginelli (talk | contribs) (→San Francisco v San Jose)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the San Francisco Bay Area article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages'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.

Urban studies and planning Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Top‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Outer East Bay

The article refers to east Contra Costa & Alameda county towns like Walnut Creek, Concord, San Ramon, Dublin, and Livermore as part of the "Outer East Bay", but now we must include other towns from Tracy and Manteca to Rio Vista to Vacaville. Not including these areas in the population and region is negligent since these are big commuting areas into the more central parts of the Bay Area.

Highest point in Bay Area

The article states that Mount Hamilton (3080 feet) is the highest point, however Mount Diablo is also in the Bay Area, as it's defined in the article.

From http://www.answers.com/topic/mount-diablo-1 Mount Diablo is a mountain in Contra Costa County, California in the San Francisco Bay Area, located south of the town of Clayton and northeast of Danville. It is an isolated 3,864 feet (1,178 m) upthrust peak that is visible from most of the San Francisco Bay Area and much of northern California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.206.219.45 (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Map errors

First map in red of 9 counties has caption "Not as defined by ABAG". It IS as defined as ABAG, as described in the article. Any objections to remove the word "Not"? Also the 2nd map below does not identify San Benito County in yellow. --Mistakefinder (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)--Mistakefinder TC)

The comment above is wrong. The map shows 10 counties (don't forget to county San Francisco--it is a tiny county). The map has high-lighted Santa Cruz County even though it's not a member of the Association of Bay Area Governments.--24.7.81.116 (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Environmental conservation & protection efforts

How about a section in the article about environmental activism in the SF Bay area? It's a pretty active area, including such efforts as the San Francisco Bay Trail, Baykeeper, and others. It could also include info about parks, trails and other environment protection/restoration efforts, such as the drive to restore the Hetch Hetchy Valley. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

I have to admit that some of the pictures in this article are utterly ridiculous. Of course, I am not trying to criticize anybody but just curious who it was that inserted such images? Western Pines (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

IPs can add images too duh

I love that trying to stop using two almost identical maps woiuld be easier if I was logged in. You know WP is getting better when a gorgeous PD pic is deleted so that the two almost identical maps with "precendence" can stay, ugg. 66.220.101.210 (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Geography

As I posted on User Geoffrey100's talk page, these maps show which areas are considered to be "Bay Area":

--Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Haven't checked the links, but I do know a good chunk of what is stipulated in this article as part of the San Francisco Bay Area is just plain wrong. Nothing, and I mean nothing, in Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, or Sonoma counties can be considered part of the San Francisco Bay Area as none of them are actually on San Francisco Bay. The demarcation line in the North is actually the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge; everything northward is either on San Rafael Bay or San Pablo Bay, thereby eliminating it from consideration. No matter what anyone from Vallejo or Pittsburgh tells you in order to sound more "hip," this is not actually something that's debatable as it's a simple matter of geography. --User:Praxis1966 (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2010 (PDT)

ALL of the counties mentioned above are ALL considered part of SF Bay. Its interesting that not looking at the links is the thing that kept you from seeing this. Anyone can look at a map and see that all of the counties touch the larger bay system, which led to the designation as being part of the Greater SF Bay Area long ago. More importantly, the major government offices including the US Census determined long ago that all nine counties that touch the Bay are in the SF Bay Metro Area. So yes, the point is moot because this was decided long ago by powers who are far beyond one Misplaced Pages editor. Norcalal (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting how Norcalal quotes the US Census in the above posting, which by the way is not entirely accurate since there is no such thing as the "SF Bay Metro Area." However, when I quoted the same US Census that designated the Bay Area as the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area in 2003, then the "powers who are far beyond one Misplaced Pages editor" are no longer valid. I guess as along as those "powers" agree with his biased point of view favoring San Francisco then its okay. Ginelli (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

San Francisco v San Jose

At what point will the larger community engage the editor(s) working to remove SF as the preeminent city in the SF Bay Area. In any area where one particular editor does not like the preeminence of SF over SJ, the person simply removes the aspect rightfully giving SF its due place and rewrites the section. There is no place that San Jose does not supercede SF that does not receive treatment. Why must it be repeated over and over and over to the exclusion of SF. WPOV issues abound in the reduction of status of SF that does not reflect reality. At one point an editor removed the BOLDED "SAN FRANCISCO" from the SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA at the introduction of the name of the entire article. Enough said. Norcalal (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

San Francisco is the major city of the Bay Area; its financial, cultural, and transportation center. Now that doesn't mean the other cities in the region are not great places to live or work, because they really are. It just means SF is its center. San Jose has a lot to offer, but the fact that SJ has a larger population than SF doesn't mean its the region's center. It just means that SJ went on an annexation spree, and since there was open land around SJ, it could do it. It's important to point out that if SJ only covered 46 square miles like SF, it would have far less people than SF. Another way of saying the same thing, if SF was as large in land area as SJ, it would have more people than SJ currently has. And this isn't just ten or twenty square miles larger, SJ is over 3 times as large in area. I never can understand why people overlook these vast differences in land area. For instance, it doesn't mean much that Phoenix is the fifth most populous city at 1.6 million people, surpassing Philadelphia at 1.5 million people, when Phoenix covers 475 sq. miles, and Philly covers 127 sq. miles; yet Phoenix only has 100,000 more people!! Anyone can see that if Philadelphia annexed seventy-three sq. miles to go up to 200 sq. miles, it would be more populous than Phoenix, and still be less than half the size in land area. This is why city populations are not a good tool to use as an indication into what to expect from a city in terms of culture, transportation, business, and vibrant urban-feel. Metro populations are more of an honest indication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.55.202 (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This area and this place is not commonly known as the San Jose Bay Area. Quoting a designation of the the US Census (one of many) is not the final authority on a common name. Norcalal (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Some will try to argue unsuccessfully that San Francisco is the dominant city in the Bay Area. Although that may have been the case in the past, San Jose's importance not only in Silicon Valley but for the entire Bay Area cannot be discounted. No longer do people need to go to San Francisco for fine dining or the arts as they once did. San Jose has many of the same offerings that one could only be found in San Francisco for those who live in the Bay Area. Also, in terms of transportation we can see San Jose's emerging importance. The San Jose Diridon main train station downtown will be the major transportation hub for the Bay Area with the future addition of BART and high speed rail to the current Caltrain, Amtrak, ACE train, and VTA Light Rail trains. We must not forget the possible move of the A's to SJ along with the 49er's to nearby Santa Clara. Professional sports also recognizes the importance of the city as well. Ginelli (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no grounds for argument. SF is a world class city and SJ is the poster child for suburban sprawl. Being a native and having an understanding that there are three major cities can be useful, but it is meaningless because of the blind agenda that has replaced good sense in the agenda thrown in all our faces by one user. Norcalal (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

More obvious hatred of San Jose as evidenced by the previous poster. He/she realizes that San Francisco's importance in the Bay Area has diminished at the same time that San Jose's dominance has been and will continue to increase. It is this person's way to vent their frustration. People are familiar with Silicon Valley as a high tech mecca in countries around the globe. Ginelli (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

MSA name, CSA name, etc.

Recent edits by user:Ginelli have been changing the lede from "San Francisco Bay Area" to "San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area", and changing the MSA_name parameter value in the infobox from "San Francisco Bay Area" to "San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area". The justification given is "he US Census Bureau in 2003 the Bay Area has been designated the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area."

With regard to the lede, the answer to this is "big deal." The article is not about a Census Bureau designated area. It is about an area commonly known as the San Francisco Bay Area. The name is based on common usage, not on a Census Bureau label. The name commonly used stems from years of use by people who live in and around the area, as well as those who live outside of it and refer to it. That name is obviously "San Francisco Bay Area". No one, other than the Census Bureau, which is obviously driven by a single factor, the population count, calls it the "San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area".

With regard to the infobox, the CSA name is "San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland". It is not "San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area". See . But this is beside the point. The parameter is asking for the name of the MSA not the CSA. The names of the MSAs are "San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont" and "San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara". See . I'm going to suggest that maybe we should use some infobox other than {{Infobox US metropolitan area}} in this article. That infobox describes MSAs, and this article describes an area covered by multiple MSAs.

I'm going to revert back these edits, see if, for the time being, the infobox can support both MSAs, but also scout around for a more appropriate one.

I'm not going to comment on the remainder of the edits being made in this sweeping batch, except to note that they are obviously controversial, and to suggest that they be made more incrementally in the future, so that individual changes may be assessed and discussed on their individual merits. Given the process of WP:BRD, the burden is on Ginelli to persuade that disputed changes ought to be made. TJRC (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously an edit war has ensued and I will have no further part in it. Some Admin will have to revert it back and deal with Ginelli or welcome us to the new place known as the San Jose Bay Area. Norcalal (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a native of the Bay Area, it is unique in that it is made up of three major metropolitan areas (San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland). In most metropolitan areas there is only one dominant city, the one with the largest population and the most number of jobs. In the case of the Bay Area there isn't any one city that is necessarily dominant. Each of the three major cities San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland each dominate in their own respective metro area but one does not dominate over the other as in a typical metro area with only one large city and many smaller suburbs. The fact that most of the wealth of the region is in Silicon Valley along with the fact that most of the employment is located there, and that various professional sports teams are looking to relocate to the San Jose area (including the 49er's, Athletics, and possibly the Warriors and Raiders) one could make an argument that San Jose is the dominant city in the region.

30 years ago one could easily have made the argument that San Francisco was the dominant city in the Bay Area. However, with large changes in demographic and employment patterns that is no longer the case. Ginelli (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginelli (talk • contribs) 01:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The (common) name of the region is indisputable. Also, there is nearly exactly the same level of employment in SJ as in SF (check Bay Area Census site). Furthermore, the assertion that there is more wealth in SJ than SF is not based in reality. The agenda of Ginelli to systematically rmv (see history of the article and check for possible sockpuppetry) the obvious preeminence of SF over SJ is the kind of thing that makes Misplaced Pages a laughing stock. Unbelievable. Norcalal (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the common name of the region is indisputable, it's the "Bay Area." Norcalal seems to have a problem with the official designation as the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area as determined by the Federal Goverment in 2003. His refusal to accept anything but San Francisco as the "preeminent" city in the Bay Area is the issue. He even denies the fact that San Jose is a wealthier city than San Francisco despite the fact that the median household income in San Jose is $70,243 http://profiles.nationalrelocation.com/California/San%20Jose/ and in San Francisco it is $55,221 http://profiles.nationalrelocation.com/California/San%20Francisco/ Ginelli (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no way that the common name of the region has ever been, or is currently, the "San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area". It does not matter that some governmental body made that definition for their convenience. Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The common name is the Bay Area, the official name is the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland area. If you have a problem with the official designation putting San Jose at the dominant city they you should contact the US Census Bureau. I am just stating the facts. Ginelli (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no "official name." There is no "office." The Census Bureau's name the name of its CSA. This article is not about that CSA. TJRC (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If one is referencing the Bay Area as a whole then by definition the Bay Area and the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland area are one and the same. Ginelli (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The CSA and the MSA are statistical constructs for use by the U.S. Census Bureau for doing its job. If there was no Census Bureau, and no census, there would still be the area that is the subject of this article. This article is not about the Census Bureau's statistical construct. Per WP:TITLE, "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article." In the case of this article, the most common English-language name for the subject of this article is "San Francisco Bay Area." The Census Bureau has nothing to do with it. TJRC (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As a Bay Area local you rarely if ever hear anyone making reference to the "San Francisco Bay Area." It is most "commonly" referred to as the "Bay Area." If San Francisco Bay were the only bay in the region then making reference to the "San Francisco Bay Area" would make sense. However, in addition to San Francisco Bay we have the similarly sized San Pablo Bay along with Suisun Bay, San Rafael Bay, among others. Therefore, referring to the region as simply the "Bay Area" is the most common and correct designation.

The US Census Bureau designation is the official method of referring to the Bay Area as the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland area, thereby listing the cities in terms of their significance or importance to the area. It is important because there is no such designation as the "San Francisco Bay Area" when referring to a specific metro region. Ginelli (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories: