Talk:List of San Francisco Designated Landmarks

Suggestions
It looks like every site is adequately located by street address, but it might help in mapping to put in all the coords. I'd personally prefer them in the address box, with small tags (nobody actually reads them - it's just for the mapping software), and limited to 4 digits after the decimal point (unless you want to hit the statue right on top of its head!) All the sites seem to be well described at the external links site, so at least some article could be written for each. The numbers are official so they can be used in WLM-US for a Wiki Loves event There are also a few state designated sites. (See the second external link). Most look like they are also NRHP. If not all of them are, they could be added here in a separate table. There are also several un-numbered historic districts - these might also be added in a separate table. Smallbones (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't seem to understand the color coding of the list of SF designated landmarks --Sarahmalik92 (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sarahmalik92; I cannot make sense of the color code for the sites. Either someone familiar with why the sites are colored this way should make a key or the color should be removed. Kreidy (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I also don't understand the color code, there is no reference or key on this page. That being said, so many of these are missing WP articles still, I would love to see the list finished as a priority (over redesign concerns). The coords are used in the WP phone app to show you what things are physically near you, so I agree with the coords suggestion by @Smallbones. Jooojay (talk) 07:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

California Hall/Das Deutches Haus
The link for item #174 "California Hall" at	625 Polk Street (Between Turk and Eddy) is wrong, as it takes the reader to a site at the UC Berkeley campus, not San Francisco. This building actually had an earlier name, "Das Deutsches Haus" originating from its original plans of construction in 1912, "which included funds raised by German societies, the building served as a social center for the community."

See here: http://www.noehill.com/sf/landmarks/sf174.asp And here: http://books.google.com/books?id=hxCLmGXGuHIC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=History+of+California+Hall+San+Francisco+625+Polk+street&source=bl&ots=N-5iaJFEWz&sig=OEf3qhvsIu-oy6WXXI3WBakS2fM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8LWQU4-HFImPyATdsYKYAw&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=History%20of%20California%20Hall%20San%20Francisco%20625%20Polk%20street&f=false

The hall was used for rock and folk music concerts during the 1960s, including "Family Dog" shows in 1965, plus "Grateful Dead" shows 1966 and 1969. Thereafter, the venue was used for other rock shows, like Janis Joplin, through the 1960s and '70s; but, apparently, it never became a full-time occupation. It's debatable if notable concert promoter Bill Graham had a role in the concerts here, as he did eventually open the Fillmore West nearby, as well promoted many of such artists. Current day Bill Graham Civic Auditorium is just blocks away, also around the San Francisco City Hall. See http://www.deaddisc.com/GDFD_Venues.htm And http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist1/rock.html

More recently, the building has been used as a school. One of the last major tenants of this building was the California Culinary Academy, before that school downsized and moved their campus out to the Potrero Hill neighborhood. Currently, it appears that Academy of Art University of San Francisco occupies the building. Ca.papavero (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

GeoGroupTemplate suggestion
Maybe the GeoGroupTemplate is in order to enable mapping of the coordinates found herein. Trilotat (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course that should have been added; i just did add it and immediately see the OSM map it links to is a great enhancement for readers here, even though I'm not sure what percentage of places have coordinates. Trilotat, you should have just done that, then maybe other editors here would see the merit of having coordinates and improving their accuracy.


 * Another change I'd make is lose the coordinates in the "Description" column. Change "Address" to "Location" and switch the coordinates there. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Color on the First Column
What does the color of the first column in both tables indicate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.40.176 (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I quote from reference 3 at the bottom of the article: "Numbers are as designated in the San Francisco Municipal Ordinance. Blue colors represent higher designations as National Historic Landmarks and listing on the National Register of Historic Places; yellow represents sites that are San Francisco Designated Landmarks without a higher designation. No color represents delisted monuments." I suspect the newer ones just don't have colors because those who added them didn't know what colors to use. — CWesling (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

links, red and blue, restore 'em
Hi User:GbGkGl, I see in recent edit(s), that along with changing date format and perhaps other presentation matters, that you have delinked a number of the items, perhaps many of them redlinks where there is not yet an article. At least one wikilink lost appeared to be a bluelink going to coverage within an existing article. Hey, I appreciate the presentation improvements, and in general that you are being bold and making what you believe are improvements. But, I do object to the wikilinks being lost.

So per wp:BRD process, I suppose I could/should roll back your edits to restore the wikilinks, and then the merits of having them should be discussed. I don't want to cause unnecessary loss of good changes, in order to undo what I think were not good, if a more efficient approach can be taken, e.g. perhaps the wikilinks could be manually restored. But I can't evaluate that right this moment. For the time being, could you please acknowledge that this issue has been raised, and not make further changes? Probably best not to make any further presentation improvements, also, because those edits could also be rolled back.

And it's not as simple as just inserting double square brackets on the names of all the sites. Some links that have been lost deliberately linked to somewhere else. What could be necessary is to undo all of your 30 or so recent edits, and go back to this version of 13 October 2022‎, and only then try to reimplement some/many of your improvements.

In my view, one of the main purposes of having a list-article of historic places is to _show redlinks_, calling upon readers/editors to get involved in creating missing articles. There is some adage, maybe in an essay, about "redlinks make wikipedia grow", which i can't immediately find. An essay I do find is Redlinks within reason, Bluelinks within context. And there is Red link which is an actual guideline. What were you thinking though, and I wonder what is your experience with editing in historic sites topic areas?

I look forward to hearing your perspective and discussing, hopefully we can sort something out. Sincerely, --Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * User:PigeonChickenFish, hi i see you just provided wikilinks for two of the now-unlinked items. I didn't check, but I suppose the previous links for those two showed as redlinks before recent changes, or the GbGkGl would not have delinked them.  Could you please comment here, though? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 10:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I added the two links because I saw they were missing. I didn’t looking too deeply at the past history (these could be new links). I do like the new date format of mdy, and appreciate the addition of newer designated places. I am confused by the location of the coords in the description field and no links to Commons near the images (which we often see in lists like this one). I agree we should bring back the red links (some with disambiguation). PigeonChickenFish (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Now looking at a few examples of delinkings done:
 * Gibb-Sanborn Warehouse (Trinidad Bean and Elevator Company) showed as a redlink, but was deliberately pipelinked to Daniel Gibb & Co. Warehouse, also a redlink, chosen because that is the name used for the place in National Register of Historic Places listings in San Francisco. It was delinked to show "Gibb-Sanborn Warehouse (Trinidad Bean and Elevator Company)'.  What I want is to show a redlink, calling for an article, and specifically to call for an article to be created at Daniel Gibb & Co. Warehouse, while what should display here is "Gibb-Sanborn Warehouse (Trinidad Bean and Elevator Company)" (which I presume is the name used in the SF Designated Landmarks program).  In other words, change it back to the way it was before.
 * St. Charles School showed as a redlink, but was deliberately pipelinked to St. Charles School (San Francisco), i.e. it was already disambiguated properly. It was delinked to just "St. Charles School". Just adding double brackets to that would link to disambigation page St. Charles School.  What I want is to show a redlink, calling for an article, but specifically to call for an article to be created at St. Charles School (San Francisco), which was what was done before GbGkGl's edits.
 * I. M. Scott School showed as redlink, was delinked and changed to "Irving M. Scott House". I believe that "I. M. Scott School" is the name given by the San Francisco Designated Landmarks program.  So, I want I. M. Scott School restored to show as the article to be created, although I would not object if the article later gets moved to "Irving M. Scott School" if it is shown that is nowadays the common name for the school, and if "I. M. Scott School" becomes a redirect to that renamed article.
 * Solari Building (Old French Consulate) provided link to French Consulate General, San Francisco, i.e. it was a deliberate suggestion that a new standalone article is not wanted, but rather development should be at that section of that article. It was delinked to "Solari Building (Old French Consulate)", losing that judgment.  I see no reason to overrule that judgment, I would just restore it to the before version.


 * On basis of these examples, I now think all of the delinkings done should be undone.


 * Another part of edits done were to change date appearances. I wonder if that can be done more easily by a reformatting using template:date.  E.g. for 1981-12-06, change that to 1981-12-06 which displays as 1981-12-06.  Making the change that way leaves the page larger in size, but avoids possibility that I would make a typo in manually editing to "December 6, 1981".


 * The edits also expanded out "St." to "Street" and otherwise improved addresses presented, which was good but I think not as important as restoring the links.


 * There were at least a few other specific improvements which I would manually re-implement:
 * adding the Key explaining color codings, and
 * updating reference from old version to this version
 * --Doncram (talk,contribs) 11:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Is there a benefit to simply restoring this, instead of editing this to move forward? I don’t fully understand how that would make it improved, unless you go back and re-add the new designations, and etc. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

hey User:Doncram I totally didn't mean to remove a blue link, sorry about that, do I need to alter anything at this moment or has it been fixed?
 * there is still a lot of unfinished issues with the color coding, and coord locations; I have attempted to fix the red link issues. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Question re: possible duplicate
Is (#111) Family Service Agency at 1010 Gough Street; and (#116) St. Paulus Lutheran Church at 999 Eddy Street the same land/lot with the front door and address relocated? PigeonChickenFish (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)