Talk:San Francisco Bay Area/Archive 2

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":

• http://www.sfgate.com/traveler/graphics/maps/sfbay_std.gif
• http://hep.ucsb.edu/hf/map/sf.pdf
• http://www.carolmendelmaps.com/mapsf/
• http://www.real-estate-us.com/images/SanFrancisco_metro_area_CA.gif
• http://geography.wr.usgs.gov/science/dasymetric/images/dasymap_2000lowres.jpg
• http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~braile/edumod/bayarea/bayarea.htm

--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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 find 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. There is also talk of the Raiders sharing a stadium in Santa Clara with the 49ers. 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)

A native of the Bay Area has far more accurate insights into the region than a non-native who claims to be the expert. The fact than SJ has surpassed SF in importance in the Bay Area disturbs those who are biased towards SF. They can choose to live in their own false reality, however, they are not entitled to misrepresent the facts, however much they choose to deny the obvious.Ginelli (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

We do not go by the impression of Wikipedia editors, we go by reliable sources. Author Gray Brechin, PhD, writes in Imperial San Francisco that that city's empire, its reach and influence, extended as far as Virginia City, Nevada, where a ton of wealth came from silver mining to line SF's coffers, build its buildings. Brechin is well aware of the growth of San Jose, but in the book he counts the greater Bay Area as being under the uninterrupted influence of San Francisco as late as the 1990s. The book was written in 1999. Your assertions do not have backing by reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinions in a book by Gray Brechin do not qualify as a "reliable source." Writing about San Francisco during the Gold Rush has nothing to do with San Francisco's influence, or diminished influence today. There's no more Gold Rush in San Francisco. In terms of San Francisco being a financial center for the Bay Area, that is no longer the case. The Pacific Stock Exchange is extinct, Bank of America moved its headquarters to Charlotte, North Carolina, and most of the Wells Fargo employees who were working in San Francisco are now out of state. Wells Fargo was acquired by Norwest Corporation in 1998. Wells Fargo is actually chartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota and has an East Coast headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina. The financial, employment, population, and thus influence has shifted to San Jose and Silicon Valley. Let's not forget that in January, 2001 KNTV 11 in San Jose became the Bay Area's NBC affiliate and in April, 2002 KNTV was purchased by NBC. In January, 2007 CNBC's Silicon Valley Bureau moved from the Wall Street Journal in Palo Alto to the KNTV studios in San Jose. I can't imagine that NBC would invest money in building a Northern California owned and operated NBC station in San Jose if they didn't see it as being a principal city in the Bay Area —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginelli (talk • Ginelli (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)contribs) 23:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Ginelli (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that Gray Brechin's book includes a great deal of his opinion about the state of the SF Bay Area as of the 1990s. It turns out that, as a published author, a PhD holder, a professor at UC Berkeley and the head of the modern New Deal Project, Brechin is completely unassailable as a source, perfectly reliable. Thanks for playing. Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit warring here: Similar editors involved or same editors?

Ginelli (talk) and Geoffrey100 (talk) have similar edit warring issues going on in a admittedly devoted effort to change a great deal about the San Francisco Bay Area article. Are they the same editor? How might it be determined if this a case of sockpuppetry or the same editor working from two different places/isps? Norcalal (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's the same editor working from two different places, that sounds like sockpuppetry to me, at least if there's intent to mislead people or subvert policy. See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Sockpuppet investigation is to be a specialized art. If the case seems important to you, you can submit it for investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to doubt that it is the same editor. Geoffrey100 was interested in narrowly defining the Bay Area to exclude regions east of the coastal East Bay, whereas Ginelli seems more interested in asserting that San Jose is the new most influential city in the area.131.243.163.206 (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I, too, think the two editors are different people. Ginelli comes often to the talk page while Geoffrey100 never did. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 8 August 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 [1]. 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 [2]. 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 Wikipedia 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)

I'm a Berkeley resident. People around here just call it the Bay Area, of course, but if I were describing it to somebody from far away, I would say "San Francisco Bay Area". I often do, in fact. I believe, for what it's worth, that the name parses as "San Francisco Bay" + "Area" rather than "San Francisco" + "Bay Area". I know about San Pablo Bay, but the big cities are all on San Francisco Bay. Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. While between locals we always say just "the Bay Area", when explaining where I live I will frequently say "the San Francisco Bay Area" (or even just San Francisco). The fact remains that the most significant body of water is the San Francisco Bay.

San Francisco Bay Area is an inaccurate terminology in that it completely ignores the area surrounding San Pablo Bay, Suisuin Bay, Grizzly Bay, etc. The entire region is simply referred to as the "Bay Area."

Also, what's with the Census office? I suppose they are just listing the cities in order of population, but KCBS has always signed "All News 740: San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose" and that has always been the order the cities come to my mind. San Francisco is still solidly the strongest influence in the Bay Area: it has the major symphony, the opera, the ballet, the busiest airport, a lion's share of the tourism, and many enduring icons. The California Tourism Commission seems to think so, anyway (note the title): Official Bay Area tourism site. 131.243.163.206 (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What's with the US Census office? Well it happens to be an official governmental agency. No, they are simply listing the cities in rank order of population. It also has to do with the fact the the center of gravity for employment and wealth has shift south toward San Jose. The growth of Silicon Valley spurred by the large amounts of venture capital in the Valley is what propelled San Jose. As far as KCBS is concerned, the reason why San Francisco is listed first is because KCBS studios are located in San Francisco. You will notice that the KNTV NBC 11 ID lists San Jose first and the KTVU Fox 2 ID lists Oakland first for the same reason. San Jose also has a major opera as well as symphony and ballet, etc. The importance of a city is not measured by the number of visitors or how busy the airport happens to be. If that's the case Atlanta's airport is busier than San Francisco's, so I guess Atlanta supersedes San Francisco in terms of importance. A tourism site is not the best source of valid information. Ginelli (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with calling the region the "San Francisco Bay Area". The area is officially called the San Francisco Bay Area. That is because the body of water in the area (the bay) has a name, like any other body of water. It's name is San Francisco Bay. Therfore, all the cities and communities surrounding the bay and lying in proximity to the bay, are in the "San Francisco Bay Area". People mistakenly think that this name refers to the city, but it actually refers to the bay itself and the towns near it. Since SF, SJ, and Oakland and all the other towns are the most high profile "bay area" in the country (in terms of culture, finance, transportation) people began shortening the name to the "Bay Area", the same way we shorten anything else. However, this is not the only "bay area" in the country. There are others bay areas, like Tampa Bay or Green Bay, etc, that have surrounding communities. Tampa Bay Area, for instance, does not refer to the city of Tampa, but the communities around Tampa Bay. So St. Petersburg lies in the Tampa Bay Area, even though its population is as large as the city of Tampa; again the name refers to the bay not the city. So yes, the city of San Jose lies in the "San Francisco Bay Area", and it always will; unless the name of the bay is changed. I do not live in that region but I will say this: You people in San Jose need to stop having an identity crisis, thinking that because someone says you are in the San Francisco Bay Area, they are saying you play second fiddle to San Francisco. The name officially refers to the bay that is called San Francisco, not the city that is called San Francisco. -And futhermore, there is nothing wrong with the city of San Francisco anyway. I like San Jose and San Francisco for what they both offer. If one wants great history, finance, culture, architecture, historic streetcars, parades, etc, they can go into SF. If one wants to get away from the hubbub, experience a medium pace atmosphere, be more laid back and absorb the beauty, they can go into SJ. The two cities complement each other well. Oakland and San Jose grew because of their proximity to San Francisco, and all three cities and the surrounding towns have made a thriving and important region. So when speaking about San Francisco, you should show some respect. You don't have to like the city, or live there, but respect it for its place in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Employment numbers in the Cities of San Francisco and San Jose

According to Bay Area Census: San Francisco, total employment in SF in 2000 was 427,823 and in 2006-2008 it was 443,604. In Bay Area Census: San Jose, SJ had a total employment in 2000 of 436,890 and in 2006-2008 it was 445,479, for a (recent) difference of only 1,875. This gives San Jose only a slight lead, which is so small that it is statistically insignificant. So yes, SJ has higher employment than SF, but not by an amount that would give it dominance by any interpretation. In 2000 the difference of 9067 was larger, so the trend that one editor keeps harping about has all but evaporated in the existence of any supremacy of SJ over SF in terms of total employment. Norcalal (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Of note is the fact that in recent years (according to the census numbers in the above sources), is total number of self-employed persons in SF when compared to San Jose. There were over 42,000 in SF, while in SJ the total is just over 30,000, a significant difference of 40% more self-employed persons living in SF. Norcalal (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Norcalal is continuing his quest assert the supremacy of SF over SJ. He admits that SJ has more jobs than SF, however, he states that SJ's lead over SF in employment is "statistically insignificant." So the question is how many more jobs does SJ need to make the difference statistically significant. Whether or not SF has more self-employed people than SJ is irrelevant. What matters is the total number of people who are employed in the respective cities.Ginelli (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This page is only for questions about how to improve the article on the subject matter. --Monterey Bay (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point Monterey Bay. My only reason for placing actual employment numbers here is the attempt by at least two editors to remove SF as the preeminent City in the San Francisco Bay Area is not supported by the evidence. Does anyone besides one or two editors believe that the nonsense of removing SF from dozens of areas in the SF Bay Article will actually improve content? Again, even after threat of blocking, I begrudgingly give credit to one those editors for persistence as he has again attempted to complete the same exact massive changes for the 5th time in a relative short period of time despite warnings from admins NOT to do so. In regards to the wild assertions of this one editor, the goal seems to be to systematically remove the very words SF from the as much as the SAN FRANCISCO Bay Area article as possible and this editor states plainly above that I am trying to assert that SF has preeminence over San Jose. Only one problem there: THE ENTIRE WORLD ALREADY KNOWS THAT SF IS THE DOMINANT CITY AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN. Will any admin actually follow up with the block threat and stop this nonsense since Ginelli has been told not to make such sweeping edits without gaining consensus and then did it again? Unbelievable. Norcalal (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors, we cannot decide on our own that one factor such as employment figures is the determinant of which city is the leading one in the San Francisco Bay Area. What we do instead is take expert opinion articles, popular opinion articles in reliable sources, and mainstream news, magazine and book sources, etc. To change this article's title and content, the source must say that the name of the Bay Area has changed from San Francisco Bay Area to whatever. I am confident such sources will not be found. Further debate without reliable sources is just noise. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If only the changes that keep getting placed in the article were only about the name of the region. Looking here, one can see the changes again made last night are beyond the name change and are the same ones Admins threatened to block over earlier in the week. Norcalal (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If I see this same edit warring again, I will report him again. A block is certain. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"The California Fur Rush"

Can editors explain why there is a huge section on "The California Fur Rush"? Seems like a special interest of some editor has led to addition of of this section despite reference to another article. How does this section achieve the overall importance of the amount of space it takes? Why is it in the article at all? And finally, why does it supersede the section on Ecology? Since it is here, shall we develop other extensive sections on bears, birds, fishes and other flora and fauna of the region in this article? IF we are looking at a population of a wild animal, that would include every species, right. Norcalal (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Article history shows that section was added by Schmiebel in January 2010. I would not think it requires much more than a few sentences, probably situated within Ecology. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that much of it would go better in History of California, which doesn't cover much of the history of the Russian activity in Northern California or of the fur trade.--Hjal (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Environmental and ecological sections issues

In a clean SF Bay AREA Article, there would, perhaps, be summaries of a few major aspects of the San Francisco Bay Article, with the Main article wikilink prominently displayed over all subsections related to ecology, environment and flora and fauna, yes? It is not likely specific populations of crab and fish, and birds, for example, would be in detail here. Environmental affects of humans and polution of the waters and the like could be summarized in this article to a certain limited extent, but largely detailed in a main related or "daughter" article. Norcalal (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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.

No, "we" do NOT have to include these regions, unless significant commentary in newspapers, magazines, and books have begun to include these exurbs in the outer East bay. Its reasonable to mention that they are commute exurbs, but beyond that may be speculation on our part.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

schizophrenic article

It seems to me there are two groups of editors working on this article: one group that thinks it is about the nine-county Bay Area (as promoted by the San Francisco Chronicle), and another that thinks it is about the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Combined Statistical Area. The result is a great deal of counterproductive editing and confusion. Since there are two distinct (but overlapping) topics, perhaps there should be two articles. --Stepheng3 (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. In this reversion of mine to remove a redefinition made by Ginelli, I wrote in the edit summary, "Dude! Make a new CSA article." I was serious. This article should continue as it has been, the pop definition, and a new article should be created to cover the CSA definition, with its interesting demographic stats. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Has Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities discussed this issue in a general way? Or has is been worked out this way in any of the other metro articles? I think that this article could have a short section that identifies the CSA and the MSAs that include parts of the Bay Area, with links to the main CSA article. Unless there is already a model to follow, I think that the CSA article should focus on current economic information, with a history of the changing boundaries of statictical areas within the current CSA, rather than duplicating all of the usual content for cities and metros. Regarding the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland v. San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose arguments, I think that it would be perfectly reasonable to move this article to Bay Area. There is a dab page already at Bay Area (disambiguation).--Hjal (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC) [Changed my mind re BA--see below.--Hjal (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)]

Well the Bay Area is officially defined by the 9 counties surrounding the bay. But a newer more modern definition should include a 14 county area with the additions of Santa Cruz, San Benito, Monteray, Lake, and Mendacino counties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.149.7 (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that Santa Cruz County belongs as part of the Bay Area without including other counties (unless they match what I will describe). A large (and I mean large) amount of people commute into San Jose, which is undoubtedly part of the Bay Area. Shouldn't Santa Cruz be included? Maybe I'm the only person offended by not being included, but I'm not offended by very many things (nowadays people get easily offended over proven facts). --67.180.161.183(talk)_{01:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)}

An ideal time to fork the article would be in March, when the 2010 census figures are officially released. I'm willing to attempt the fork, provided I'm still active on Wikipedia at that time. --Stepheng3 (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Its a long time before new Census data is released, but it is inconceivable that this article would be fundamentally changed based on the Census Dept. and their somewhat arbitrary compilations and correlations. A new article with census designations that is referenced in this geographic based article would, perhaps, solve a lot of issues. However, the identity crisis some editors have around San Jose will not likely go away at all since that issue is rooted elsewhere. Norcalal (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Creating a new CSA article would solve the SFBA v. SJ-SF-Oak argument. The remaining question would be whether the name for the WP article about the other aspects of the nine-county (more-or-less) region should be SFBA or just Bay Area, which is now a redirect to SFBA--see Bay Area (disambiguation) for the other Bay Areas in the US. Local usage, whether spoken or in print, both around the Bay and in Northern California, suggests "Bay Area." I think that the most common spoken usage in Southern California and the rest of the US for this region is just "San Francisco," which we can't use. Our regional government agencies, ABAG, MTC, and BAAQMD, don't use SF in their names. Those state agencies that do include SF in their formal names (e.g., BCDC and the RWQCB) are really using "San Francisco Bay" to refer to the Bay itself, not to the region. However, all five use SFBA to refer to the nine counties, most in the introductory paragraphs describing their agency. Most go on to use "Bay Area" throughout the text of their websites. I think that the full SFBA is best for the article title. Once the CSA article is created, Santa Cruz and San Benito counties and their regions can be cut back to a brief mention and links in the CSA section of this article, rather than getting anything like equal treatment here.--Hjal (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Hjal. SFBA continues to be the best name for this non-CSA article. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The CSA Map "thing"

The map located in the introbox of the article was returned to the map delineating only the NINE (9) TRADITIONAL BAY AREA COUNTIES, all of which have real estate actually touching the Bay. When I looked today, I saw the CSA map and related title in the intro box. When is enough enough already? Are we really going to battle over and over and over and over about the subject of THIS article being anything other than the SF Bay Area? When viewing the latest change, the map of the CSA was in the article twice. Really? Is there the possibility of counseling for the extent of this San Jose CSA stuff or is it a terminal disease? This article is about a historic place related to the geographic and historical development of the San Francisco Bay Area. This article is not primarily about a CSA, which is a a statistical area - an artificial construction created by the Census to crunch numbers. The department of Commerce does not supersede every other consideration enough to warrant repeating a map twice. Honest, it really doesn't. Norcalal (talk) 09:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree that this article should be about the popular geographic entity, and other articles should be written for the official CSA and/or MSA definitions, with their government-determined names: San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA MSA and San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well said - CSA is subordinate to common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.28.196 (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oakland 4th or 5th?

Does Oakland have the 4th or 5th largest container shipping port? It says "Oakland is a major manufacturing and distribution center, rail terminus/hub, and has the fourth largest container shipping port in the United States.", then next paragraph "Oakland, on the east side of the bay, has the fifth largest container shipping port in the United States." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.188.56 (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the 2009 rankings, Oakland is the 5th largest port in the United States by container traffic volume (the 6th largest in North America - Vancouver, BC is the non-US port above it). (North American container ports by volume) This is listed as a citation for the sentence naming Oakland as the fifth largest port. 24.4.145.216 (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

SFBA is NOT the 6th largest metro area

This keeps showing up in the lede and it's outright wrong. The Bay Area is not a metro area, by anyone's definition. It is an urbanized area that comprises smaller metro areas like San Francisco and San Jose. The census bureau happens to consider it a combined statistical area, the 6th largest such area. Therefore, it's misleading and wrong to call the Bay Area the 6th largest metro area.--Louiedog (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed and rehashed over and over and over. THIS article is about the traditional San Francisco Bay Area, based on the historic 9 county region that actually have real estate touching the bay. One more time: Census information is helpful to get the population of those counties but the Census, in this case, does not override the historic geographic region that is the San Francisco Bay Area. Please write magnificent articles about the CSA and MSA issues and tie them into this article as a sub-section. This issue has been dealt with over and over and over. For this article. I know that this need to specifically and narrowly define the article based on artificial Census statistical areas is a termninal disease and there may be no help for those demanding it, but this article, based upon previous discussions (that went on forever) will remain as the TRADITIONAL San Francisco Bay Area. Yes, that means chopping up census statistical areas to do it and that is just the way it is. The Census does not define the article, but rather, editors here make use of the census when considering the population of the 9 counties. As a result of this issue, the CSA/MSA "stuff" needs to be removed. It occurs that nonspecific placement of the CSA MSA information in various places in the article is confusing readers/editors and encouraging the rehash over and over and over. Norcalal (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, someone should definitely write the appropriate CSA and MSA articles, ones that can be linked and summarized here. This article is about the traditional and popular concept, not about a government department's decision regarding population centers. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I will accept the stance that the Bay Area is a popular concept, rather than a government-defined area on two conditions

• That this popular concept Bay Area is not the 6th largest metro area in the country, since we're now using some definition outside of the definitions that have been used to rank these things.
• That a reliable source be used to define the Bay Area. Regardless of what we wish to write in Wikipedia or what we wish to write it about, the foundation of Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth. The only source we have right now is a link to a non-profit website with the following motivations: "FOCUS is a regional development and conservation strategy that promotes a more compact land use pattern for the Bay Area." It's not clear where they got any of their data from and, in spite of objections that we're not writing an article about a government-defined place, we're not using this source's 7.1 million, but rather the government-defined 7.4 million.

--Louiedog (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You can't go wrong starting with the 1959 book The San Francisco Bay Area: a metropolis in perspective by Mel Scott. He defines the nine-county geographical entity and describes its characteristics and history. From the scholarly imprint of UC Press, anything written in that book can serve as a foundation for concepts in this article. In 1985 Scott wrote a new edition, and this one is often available in many college and city libraries. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, but it's not even mentioned in the article, let alone cited as a source for anything up there.--Louiedog (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, if the CSA and MSA stuff is so great, then there is no problem. Write those articles and they can be amazing. Right? THIS article IS about the historic 9 county area. If an editor wants to write an article about the San Jose-Hollister-Tim Buk Tu Statistical Area, go ahead and knock yourself out. Place the name of this new, separate article in "See Also" here in this article. If it is such a great idea to use the census construct, which is primarily related to population, why not create THAT specific article, with all its amazing census details under its EXACT name? Norcalal (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

My above comment: whatever we put here has to be rigorously tied to sources. If this article is about something other than the Census-designated area, then it still has to be about something that's citable and cited.--Louiedog (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

From the article (South Bay portion): "The regional governments in the San Francisco Bay Area, including the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board include only the nine counties above in their boundaries or membership." There is no problem defining the SF Bay Area using only the traditional 9 counties (all of which have real estate that is located both adjacent to and draining into SF Bay). The work needed is perhaps to cite in every possible place the 9 county area. Norcalal (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Introduction Consensus

A few months ago, I put a bit of effort into writing an introduction for this article which, I felt, smoothed together a number of awkward loose ends caused by many, many edits to different sentences without thought for overall cohesiveness. In November or so, I made an edit to re-tidy the intro, but it was promptly reverted by someone not logged in. As such, instead of just attempting the same again now that I have time to look at the article, I wanted to seek a consensus for the presentation of the introduction. My November revision is here.

It seems to me that most of the same information is stated in the old revision and the current revision, with the primary differences showing up in things that are repeated twice (the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the current revision seem to repeat themselves), and the fact that the current revision consists of long lists of various things, such as Silicon Valley companies, and the nine Bay Area counties. I think that for a good introductory style, the intro should not have any lists longer than, say, three examples. I know one of the symptoms of disorder that crept into the intro after my August edit was the one-by-one addition of things like companies, based on editors' differing views on which are the most important companies of the Silicon Valley. I don't have strong opinions of the choice of companies, but I do feel like the list should be kept short in the intro, and any elaboration can occur later in the article.

I wanted to solicit opinions and consensus, especially from a few of the veteran editors I see keeping watch on this page, before attempting another edit. I think it would be nice to start with the old edit linked above and make a current consensus similar in style with any content changes needed. 24.4.145.216 (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you not logged in here or in the earlier edit? A discourse here generally goes better if the editor is registered with a name. Norcalal (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually have an account. I stumbled across this last summer while bored and didn't give it much thought until I decided to peek at it when I remembered it. I suppose at this point registering might be a good idea.24.4.145.216 (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If you do not want your writing to be edited at will, then do not submit it here. --Monterey Bay (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitions?

What was the goal of creating a new definition subsection (not usual practice) and moving the intro information out of the intro? Norcalal (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not to fond of the practice either. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

GDP

Is the GDP of the Bay area mentioned anywhere? If not it should be. I'm trying to find some sources to see if there is even a GDP considered for the entire region. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Found it: $487 Billion. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

West Bay???

That is gonna go over like a lead balloon. Here we begin the special bs in Marin like we had to deal with it in San Jose. Fun Norcalal (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

San Francisco Bay Area Combined Statistical Area

I created the article San Francisco Bay Area Combined Statistical Area to cover the federal CSA definition. At the same time, I trimmed this article down somewhat, taking out details of Santa Cruz and San Benito counties, leaving the various definitions. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I consider this an important step toward distinguishing the CSA from the traditional 9-county region. Failure to make that distinction has exacerbated past edit wars. —Stepheng3 (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"metropolitan region"

I would like to change the wording in the lead from "metropolitan region" to "area of population". "Metropolitan region" doesn't really mean anything and it's too easily mistaken for "metropolitan area" which the SFBA is NOT. The closest thing to what it is is regarded as a combined statistical area, which is just the Census Bureau's means for grouping together a number of adjacent metro areas that cannot properly be thought of as only having one urban center, which is the case here. The SFBA should therefore be regarded as an area of population, made out of joining a number of adjacent metropolitan areas, but itself is not a metropolitan area.--Louiedog (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

SF Bay Area - More Musically Diverse than just Rock and Hip Hop

It seems a shame to me that in the Wiki article only Rock and Hip Hop are mentioned as music in the SF Bay Area. There is a depth of other styles of world class music here including (but not limited to): an amazing jazz scene, an amazing Latin music scene, world class symphonies and operas,etc., etc. 15 October 2012‎ 99.34.228.140

Ive noticed this article is heavily weighted towards certain aspects of the Bay Area, and tried to remove the most egregious details, esp around metal/punk. This kind of summary article should focus on only the most notable facts, with lots of "see also" and "main article" links. jazz and classical are huge here, you are quite correct.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: Metropolitan Region

I respectfully but vehimently disagree. I have researched the subject thoroughly. Even the OMB and U.S. Census Bureau have conflicting definitions or descriptions of what define Metropolitian areas (or how they each define them). Any (large) area of continuous/congruent/uninterupted population is a metropolitan area. A "Greater" area, is just a larger metropolitan area. Forget about the Census Bureau or OMB definitions for a moment. Research the definition in encyclopedias and historical and cultural accounts and you will get a better understanding on the issue.

The San Francisco Bay area is most definitely a "metropolitan area" as much as and until there is a large enough break in population (geographically), between popululation centers (ie. the Sacramento CSA for example), or to it's rural limits. Whatever the intent, defining smaller metropolitan areas within a larger metropolitan area (or CSA if we use the government's definition) is extremely difficult and utilizes seriously flawed methods to quantify or define smaller populated areas (MSAs) within a larger populated area (CSA). The factors they choose to include and exclude when defining a "MSA", are ill-conceived at best. Some are very logical and some completely illogical.

Take for example the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, MSA; Fremont is much closer to San Jose and has more historical and economic ties to San Jose and Silicon Valley, than Oakland. If they were going to do it that way, then San Francisco should be it's own MSA as (it is it's own county), and Fremont to Rodeo including all of the East Bay area (including Oakland) west of the Diablo Range it's own metropolitan area. The Peninsula, -it's own metropolitan area. All the cities east of the Diablo range from livermore to Antioch, it's own metropolitan area (Contra Costa), etcetera. Fremont is in Alameda county and part of the East Bay. It has minimal relation to San Francisco by any quantification, except by tying Oakland (and therefore Alameda County) to San Francisco. I'm assuming they did that because historically some of the commuting population of southern Alameda County including Fremont, work in San Francisco.

Then the OMB/Census Bureau, when calculating what should be considered the CSA, included Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties even though the latter two counties don't touch the Bay itself. Illogical? Not at all, because no one said that the CSA had to include only counties that touch the bay. They look at much more data than simple geographic data. San Benito and Santa Cruz County are historically, economically, and culturally tied to the South Bay so much so that they took that into consideration when creating the CSA definition. You might only know that though if you grew up here or lived here for your entire life. Many residents of those counties work in San Jose and Silicon Valley and commute there as well. The only question then is, why didn't they include Monterey county? OR, if you're going to include Santa Cruz and San Benito counties in the SFBAY CSA, then you could just as easily exclude them from the SFBAY CSA, and include them (as) in the classic defintion of the "Monterey Bay Area", of which Santa Cruz County is definitely a part of. So you would have Santa Cruz County, Monterey County, and San Benito County as a Metropolitian Statistical Area (or at least the first two). The Salinas MSA, is basically defined as Monterey County (or vice versa). The San Francisco MSA should be defined the same way, or could even be defined as San Francisco and the Peninsula (or SF and the northern half of the Peninsula, or SF and all the Peninsula) considering they are connected by land and economically, historically, culturally, commuters etc. Of Course Silicon Valley by definition is not only the Santa Clara Valley, but includes much or most of the Peninsula, and also Milpitas and Fremont etc. There are many high-tech companies in Fremont that spread out as an extention of the Valley when land in the valley became scarce and too more expensive.

Combining San Francisco and Oakland from some perspectives makes minimal sense. It is understandable though, for the same reason it's understandable why they included Santa Cruz County and San Benito County in the CSA; but Fremont as part of the SF MSA? I'm sorry for rambling, but a couple of years ago I looked in detail at data compiled by the OMB and the Census Bureau (for days), and was throughly confused. That still hasn't changed. So I'm not trying to be contentious. I'm simply engaging in discussion and debate (though be it by myself at this point :) I hope my diatribe was somewhat interesting and engaging and not boring. Peace. -John Jcheckler (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Something wrong with the listed population

The link from "Ranked 6th in the U.S." (to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas) actually goes to a table containing the MSA listed as 11th. Not sure if this article is supposed to be about the MSA or the CSA or neither, but it should probably either link to the correct table, or state the correct position.

Ahailes (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The ranking is unsourced, so I say delete it until someone provides a source. On a related note, does anyone know where I can find the list of counties included in the MSA? —Stepheng3 (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Nine Counties or Twelve Counties? Both sources only list 9 Bay Area Counties...

Not sure why the Wikipedia page lists 12 Bay Area Counties. Both sources, ABAG and BayAreaVision.org, only have 9 Bay Area counties listed. The following three are not considered Bay Area Counties:

San Benito Santa Cruz San Joaquin

If these are Bay Area counties than they should be cited by a reliable source. This is a pretty egregious error that has no support in the sources. It makes the whole San Francisco Bay Area page page seem uncredible.Ktmackish (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)ktmackish

 Done. Thanks for pointing out the problem. I have rolled back the article to its correct nine-county version. On October 26, someone editing from ;Pennsylvania was confused by the two versions; they thought the article was about the federal government version which is 12 counties: San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA Combined Statistical Area. The popular definition is only nine counties. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Though San Benito, Santa Cruz and San Joaquin counties are adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Area, and accordingly linked to that area, they are not described by reliable sources as a part of the Bay Area. There is an inherent logic to the nine county definition, as those counties actually border the San Francisco Bay. That may be slightly arguable in the case of Napa County, but in truth, the lower Napa River is an estuary of San Francisco Bay. It does not consistently flow downstream, but flows back and forth with tidal changes. And the southwest portions of Napa County are San Francisco Bay wetlands. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sub-region names

In this edit[3], the "South Bay and Silicon Valley" section was renamed "San Jose and Silicon Valley." I suggest that the sub-region names should be reasonably parallel and should not result in overlapping territory. The other sub-regions are all well-defined, but Silicon Valley is subject to some dispute, has changed over time, and (to many of us) includes portions of at least three of the sub-regions: South Bay, East Bay, and Peninsula. None of the sub-heads included the major city of the sub-region, except for San Francisco, which is our only combined City and County and which has no other reasonable name. I suggest that this section be changed to "South Bay" and that the hatnote be dropped or changed to "For the broader technology hub, see Silicon Valley. The link to a minor section of Santa Clara Valley is not helpful.--Hjal (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Discophil makes an unsupportable assertion when he states that "San Jose" and "Silicon Valley" are synonymous. Silicon Valley certainly includes Cupertino/Redwood City in the west and Fremont/Milpitas in the east, and a bunch of stuff in between those poles. Binksternet (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

He meant that "South Bay" and "Silicon Valley" are synonymous, I think, which some others have supported in the past. I don't agree with that.--Hjal (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood. I still agree that "South Bay" should be the heading. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Images in infobox

It seems like the images in the infobox are a bit large. Could someone possibly combine them into a collage?--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

name

no one calls it San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area, and that would need a source. an editor has really fucked with this article by doing this. 76.254.37.220 (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Highest Elevation

In the sidebar of the article, the highest elevation in the Bay Area is currently listed as belonging to Mount Hamilton at 4,360 feet.

However, the Southwest peak of Cobb Mountain is acknowledged as the highest point in Sonoma County at 4,483 feet. Wouldn't that qualify it to be the highest point in the Bay Area as well?

--Coyoteh (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Climate

unsourced paragraph. add back as sourced.(Mercurywoodrose)

Because the hills, mountains, and large bodies of water produce such vast geographic diversity within this region, the San Francisco Bay Area offers a significant variety of microclimates. The areas near the Pacific Ocean are generally characterized by relatively small temperature variations during the year, with cool foggy summers and mild rainy winters. Inland areas, especially those separated from the ocean by hills or mountains, have hotter summers and colder overnight temperatures during the winter. San Jose at the south end of the Bay averages fewer than 15 inches (380 mm) of rain annually, while Napa at the north end of the Bay averages over 30 and parts of the Santa Cruz Mountains just a few miles west of San Jose get over 55. In the summer, inland regions can be over 40 degrees Fahrenheit (22 degrees Celsius) warmer than the coast. This large temperature contrast induces a strong pressure gradient, which results in brisk coastal winds which help keep the coastal climate cool and typically foggy during the summer. Additionally, strong winds are produced through gaps in the coastal ranges such as the Golden Gate, the Carquinez Strait, and the Altamont Pass, the latter the site of extensive wind farms. During the fall and winter seasons, when not stormy, a high pressure area is usually present inland, leading to an offshore flow. While negatively impacting air quality, this also clears fog away from the Pacific shore, and so the best weather in San Francisco can usually be found from mid September through mid October. Winter storms are typically wet and mild in temperature during this time of year, being caused by cold fronts sweeping the eastern Pacific and often originating in the Gulf of Alaska. During November into mid March, winter storms are usually several days in length, wet and cool, with severely damaging storms rare. There is also recorded snowfall on San Francisco Bay Area peaks, such as Mount St. Helena, Tamalpais, Diablo and Hamilton. Snow levels range every given year from 1000 feet in Sonoma County to 2,000 ft in Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties the during the winter. Greater recorded snowfall amounts are generally recorded once every 5 to 10 years. In February 2001, 30 inches (76 cm) of snow fell on Mount Hamilton (4360 ft), 17 inches on Mount Tamalpais (2,574 ft) and 10 inches on Mount Diablo (3,864 ft). Occasionally during the late Summer or early Autumn, spells of warm humid weather will drift over the Bay Area from the Southwest Monsoon, usually bringing high variable clouds as well, and more rarely, high-based thunderstorms.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on San Francisco Bay Area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090630084732/http://www.sfgate.com:80/getoutside/1996/apr/rwanimals.html to http://www.sfgate.com/getoutside/1996/apr/rwanimals.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040401015952/http://www.census.gov:80/Press-Release/www/2003/metroareas.xls to http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/metroareas.xls

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Misleading density stats

To arrive at the stated 33,116/sq mi, all 7.65 million inhabitants of the 9-county Bay Area would have to live in San Francisco proper. That's nonsense. In actuality, the density of the 9-county area is 7,650,000/8196 = 933/sq mi. Junuxx (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on San Francisco Bay Area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110920005932/http://www.visitcalifornia.com/media/pages/getting_around/maps/SAN-FRANCISCO.pdf to http://www.visitcalifornia.com/media/pages/getting_around/maps/SAN-FRANCISCO.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130319014514/http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/bulletins/2013/b13-01.pdf to http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/bulletins/2013/b13-01.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111124020222/http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/state_census_data_center/census_2010/documents/2010Census_Table3A_RedistrictingFile.xls to http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/state_census_data_center/census_2010/documents/2010Census_Table3A_RedistrictingFile.xls
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116021343/http://www.faleo.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=62 to http://www.faleo.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=62
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091123122848/http://www.thearda.com/QuickLists/QuickList_195c.asp to http://www.thearda.com/QuickLists/QuickList_195c.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on San Francisco Bay Area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111025050531/http://www.bayareavision.org/bayarea/index.html to http://www.bayareavision.org/bayarea/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Rewriting the article

Hey everyone, I am currently working on a rework of this article. It is currently not in a great shape, with a lot of missing citations and entire sections that are completely blank. I could use some help on this immense task, so if any editors are free and have time to help out, please check out my sandbox at User:haha169/sandbox and help me fill it in. Much appreciated! --haha169 (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:San Francisco Bay Area/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) 19:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   The copyvio tool brought a few links I'm going to have to read more closely before checking this off. As one (largely harmless) example, the two sentences on burrowing owls are fairly closely paraphrased from [4]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

   [5] is also a fairly close paraphrasing in the bird section. The other matches were false-positives, either for correctly-referenced direct quotes or from using phrases like "the San Francisco Bay Area" a lot. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

   This is fine after updates. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass.

Thank you for your review! I've rewritten the sections on the burrowing owl and bald eagles so that it shouldn't be copyvios anymore. I tried running Earwig's tool but either my internet is not working or is very slow, but nothing is showing up. Let me know if you see any other potential copyvios! --haha169 (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The tool is very slow at best, it took over a minute to run for me. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit

"Sacramento is not part of bay area. Sacramento is the capital of California. This area has most counties. This area has the most bridges in the state."

This edit has now reverted. 2601:205:C100:627F:68C2:6098:35C8:F9B7 (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Everyone should add it back! --2601:205:C100:627F:4108:A7AC:D3E0:C868 (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on San Francisco Bay Area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170323165350/http://www.sfdeltas.com/club-about to http://sfdeltas.com/club-about

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Homelessness in the Bay Area

Hi, fellow Wikipedians!

I would like to add a section on homelessness in the Bay Area. Since the housing crisis is a critical problem that has been growing for decades and is now a distinctive aspect of the Bay Area, I think it would be beneficial to add a section on homelessness.

I have been compiling all the necessary data with verified sources so will be ready to add this section soon. Please feel free to also add to this as well.

--Katrina0118 (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Katrina0118:, thank you for your interest in helping us out! I just wanted to point out that we have a section (the last paragraph in "Economy") that deals with the housing crisis. If you can add/improve on that section, that would be great! As for homelessness, you can either create a new subsection under "Demographics" or perhaps just continue with the housing crisis section in "Economy". How it would be best organized would depend on the content of what you're contributing.

Again, thank you for your help! --haha169 (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Since there's so much information on housing in the Bay Area and various aspects to discuss about it (e.g. cost of living, causes and effects, etc.), do you think it would be better organized to make a "Housing" subsection under "Economy"? Katrina0118 (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely, that is a suitable idea as well! --haha169 (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Maps

Can someone please improve the maps in this otherwise helpful article? Specifically, not one map indicates "San Pablo Bay" vs "San Francisco Bay" -- not even the article's section on Hydrography. I'd also love to see the "Golden Gate" geographical feature labeled, the different islands and bridges clearly named, etc, etc, although that might be asking too much. Thanks! Tina Kimmel (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Affordability?

The article says nothing about affordability, density restrictions, a certain tax proposition California has had for a while, etc. That is interesting since the population is set to explode once those little problems are solved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6306:5000:3617:EBFF:FEDE:435B (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, not that we really need Wikipedia to know these things. They are quite obvious to anyone in the tech industry who can't yet afford the bay area. But shouldn't WP be a balanced source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6306:5000:3617:EBFF:FEDE:435B (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, it would be nice to be able to read about these things on WP rather than having to go to other sources that are perhaps not reviewed as thoroughly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6306:5000:3617:EBFF:FEDE:435B (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You should feel free to update the article yourself with this information, given proper sourcing of course! --haha169 (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I plan to add a section to the "Economy" section regarding poverty, its causes, manifestations, and potential solutions in the Bay Area. It would also perhaps provide a nice transition into the following section on homelessness. This will include sources discussing the negative impacts of the technology industry and the industrialization and shipping industries. Marleypirochta (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)marleypirochta

Addition of Stanislaus and Merced counties

I noticed that as of Sep 2018 (https://www.census.gov/geographies/reference-files/time-series/demo/metro-micro/delineation-files.html), the Census Bureau now includes Stanislaus and Merced counties (aka Modesto and Merced MSAs) as part of the CSA. They should be incorporated into the article. Noahnmf (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

These aren't considered part of the Bay Area, but only the CSA. I don't think anyone from here calls Modesto and Merced the Bay Area (or Stockton or San Benito County either for this matter).—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Naddruf. None of these countries are located on San Francisco Bay. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Corrections on November 11, 2020

While perusing articles related to New Albion, Francis Drake, and Sebastião Rodrigues Soromenho (Sebastian Ceremeño), I came across this particular article and immediately noticed a glaring error regarding the first European claims. I followed the reference and found it to be a timeline listed online for an old version of the official San Francisco City and County website. The timeline is in error. As I am very cautious to edit a WP:GA, I used several citations written by an international collection of reputable authors. Please know that the sources are solid. Kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I also made corrections to the egregious errors regarding the discovery of SF Bay. Again, it was from an unreliable source. European discovery of the bay was NOT by sea as the article stated. It was discovered by land. Sergeant Ortega, leading a detachment of troops from the Portola expedition, first came across it while trekking by land. Later, he brought the entire expedition to view the sight. The article stated that the Portola expedition sailed through the Golden Gate. Impossible since they had no ships and had traveled for hundreds of miles by land. The bay was not entered by ship until Ayala did so in, I believe, 1775. I do not have a book to cite this; consequently, I did not include it in the article.

Considering that these are only the most recent significant errors to be corrected--and that some of the links to references are dead--is this still a Good Article? Kind regards to all.Hu Nhu (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hu Nhu Thanks for your work, here. In regards to the dead links, this would not affect/detract from the article's continued status as a GA article, IMO. See WP:V. A book, which may not be available online, is still a valid source, so....even if we are no longer able to access a previously available online source, it still remains as a valid source.

Also, my understanding is that, in the earlier days of Wikipedia, the requirements for articles, which would include GAs, were more lax. So an old article might not pass today's more rigorous standards, but this one is not so old, GA-wise. I believe there is a process by which a GA can be re-evaluated, but it requires a good bit of editor-power to conduct such an evaluation. As we are usually stretched thin anyway, my opinion is that we shouldn't worry too much about whether an article is still a GA, or whatever. Rather, it is best to make corrections, as you are doing in an intelligent manner. That's just my opinion, of course. The original editors may have been editing in good faith, but didn't realize that they were consulting poor quality sources. But, I am not an historian! You are doing the right thing, by not changing information until you have a source to verify. Thanks so much for bringing your intelligence to bear on the problems. If you have good sources, don't let the GA prevent you from correcting errors. No one is infallible, and of course, articles need updating/correcting. Best wishes, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments Tribe of Tiger. I will look at the article to discern any other uses of the unreliable source that was so problematic. It may have been further used, and the source clearly was written by someone not competent to do so. I will, if I am able to do so, correct problems. Kind regards.Hu Nhu (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hu Nhu, your objections are well-founded. When I wrote the note above, I had not yet done my own "research" on the particular sources in the article. I was rather appalled to discover that this important information was sourced to a Visitor's Guide, instead of a reputable history book-type source. My respect to you, for discovering this problem! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)