Talk:San Francisco#rfc 3BBF356

Why is this article now noting San Francisco is the "5th densest county" instead of the 2nd densest major city? Calling it the 5th densest county is misleading, since the other four denser counties are all in New York City, a place that very few people are even aware is made up of multiple counties since cities (with incredibly rare exception) exist within counties and are not made up of them.

Unless someone has a good reason to oppose the change, I'm going to switch this back to using the same approach that is used in the New York City article, which says "With an estimated population in 2024 of 8,478,072 distributed over 300.46 square miles (778.2 km2), the city is the most densely populated major city in the United States."

--Cowboywizard (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Mathglot}} You seem to be confused as to the purpose of my edit. I don't dispute anything in the article. My intention was simply to remove a poorly written sentence. Zacwill (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

: Perhaps I am confused. I saw no problem with the sentence you removed (diff), but if you can describe what it is about it that you find problematic, perhaps we can find a better way to word it. The sentence in question is this:

:: {{talk quote|"San Fran" and "Frisco" are sometimes considered controversial as nicknames among San Francisco residents.^[52]{{remoteref|Gilson|note=53}}{{remoteref|Brinklow|2018|note=51}}}}

: From my PoV, the three references more than adequately sustain the assertion, What part of the sentence do you find to be poorly written, and do you have any suggestions for how to improve it so it reads better? Mathglot (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't see a good-faith removal here with the explanation of "simply to remove a poorly written sentence". The correct response in that case would have been to rewrite the sentence. What I see is "I don't like it" or "I don't believe it." The sources, however, support its inclusion. Back in the day, columnist Herb Caen frequently referred to these nicknames as disrespectful and undesired. It's a thing. Binksternet (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::The phrasing I object to is "sometimes considered controversial". Either the nicknames are controversial or they aren't. You wouldn't say "Los Angeles is sometimes considered the most populous city in California". Zacwill (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::: Well, I can't agree with your either-or sentence. You are right that you wouldn't use the phrase about L.A. population, because population size is an objective statement of fact that is either true or false. However, a statement like something being "sometimes considered controversial" is more subjective and requires evaluation of opinions, not a simple fact-check, so I don't see a problem using it. Another approach would be to see what reliable sources say. [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22sometimes+considered+controversial%22 Here] are 234 journal articles that use the expression, so there is no objection to using it at a high standard of professional writing. How would you rephrase the sentence to eliminate the problem you see with it? With the three sources given, I can't see eliminating the sentence entirely as a viable alternative. Mathglot (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|The nicknames "San Fran" and "Frisco" are somewhat controversial among San Francisco residents.}} Zacwill (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::: That seems possible; at least one of the books was written by Herb Caen, as previously mentioned, who was a resident. If your proposed sentence restricting the antipathy to these nicknames mostly to residents is directly supported by the given sources or by new sources you may find, then I have no objection to your wording. If it is, please so indicate in the citations using citation param |quote= or |page=. Mathglot (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'm not sure why additional sources or quotes would be necessary when there is nothing substantively different about the reworded sentence. Zacwill (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: Okay, just change it then, unless anyone puts forth an objection. Mathglot (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The citation "Nevada" does not work properly - I tried to remove it but I think I look like a bot Bingosteve (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|San Francisco|answered=yes}}

Add foreign-born population.

https://dornsife.usc.edu/eri/wp-content/uploads/sites/41/2023/01/SANFRANCISCO_web.pdf 24.150.165.195 (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Warriorglance(talk to me) 05:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The Infobox settlement in the San Francisco article states that the San Francisco Metropolitan Area had 4,566,961 residents (presumably in 2023). How many were there in 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020, for example? I'm missing a Historical population table for the Metropolitan Area, like the ones in the San Francisco and San Francisco Bay Area articles. And why isn't there an article on the San Francisco Metropolitan Area – like the San Francisco Bay Area?
Please answer in simple english.
--2003:DE:1701:D0D0:941C:4921:3E42:D12 (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
--2003:DE:1701:D0D0:941C:4921:3E42:D12 (talk) 07:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:Before addressing the lack of population table, I'll start off by noting that the reason there's no page for the SF Metropolitan Area is that SF's metro area is the Bay Area...but it's also not.

:As San Francisco Bay Area#Boundaries writes, "professor of geography at the University of California, Berkeley Richard Walker claimed that 'no other U.S. city-region is as definitionally challenged [as the Bay Area].'" The section continues to explain that the generally accepted definition of the Bay Area is the nine counties touching the bay, but that various federal agencies have different definitions. The BEA, which defines Metropolitan statistical areas, defines the SF metro area as: "San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, San Mateo, Livermore, Redwood City, Pleasanton, San Ramon, Walnut Creek, South San Francisco, San Rafael"{{cite report |author= |date=2020-03-06 |title=OMB BULLETIN NO. 20-01 |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Bulletin-20-01.pdf? |publisher= |page=66}}

:This means that talking about the "San Francisco Metro Area" is only really relevant when you're talking about BEA reports, because anyone else you ask will have a different definition for the metro area. There's no point in making an article for the metro area because everything about it is so similar to the bay area that it'd just be a pointless duplication of content.

:So why is there no table for the population of the metro area? 2 main reasons I'd guess:

:* People looking for the population of the metro area probably end up on San Francisco Bay Area, which has a historical population table.

:* Other articles for cities do not include population tables for their metro areas.

:If all you really want is the historical population of the metro area, you can find that here: [https://apps.bea.gov/itable/?ReqID=70&step=1#eyJhcHBpZCI6NzAsInN0ZXBzIjpbMSwyOSwyNSwzMSwyNiwyNywzMF0sImRhdGEiOltbIlRhYmxlSWQiLCIyMCJdLFsiTWFqb3JfQXJlYSIsIjUiXSxbIlN0YXRlIixbIjUiXV0sWyJBcmVhIixbIjQxODYwIl1dLFsiU3RhdGlzdGljIixbIjIiXV0sWyJVbml0X29mX21lYXN1cmUiLCJMZXZlbHMiXSxbIlllYXIiLFsiLTEiXV0sWyJZZWFyQmVnaW4iLCItMSJdLFsiWWVhcl9FbmQiLCItMSJdXX0=]. You might also find this discussion interesting: Talk:San_Francisco_Bay_Area/Archive_3#Merger_proposal

:9yz (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC) 9yz (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:2003:DE:1727:A377:BC98:63BE:A012:23B8 (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the detailed answer and also for the final note "...historical population of the metro area...".
--2003:DE:1727:A377:BC98:63BE:A012:23B8 (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)