Talk:San Francisco/Fisherman's Wharf

Listings in "Get out"?

Having listings in Get out is silly -- the heading is not a part of the standard district template, and all that stuff should be under Get in. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:03, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't think that this is the correct attitude for a supposed administrator to have. My understanding, is that it is part of your job to encourage new users - not "nuke" their bona fida contributions and label them as "silly".

Irrespective of this, almost all of the Star articles from the Chicago districts have a "Get Out" section. Furthermore, there is an inherent inconsistency in deleting this section on the grounds that it is not included in the District Article Template, and then leaving others like "Understand" and "Get Around" intact - as they are also not included in the Template.

Sorry, no offense intended. Your contributions weren't "nuked", I merged them into "Get in", although I did delete some of the redundant bits. My problem wasn't the existence of "Get out" in itself, but the content: it's supposed to give pointers to other interesting places to explore nearby, not nitty-gritty transport details (which belong in Get in). See eg. Chicago/Bronzeville#Go next for how it should be done. And yes, the meaning of the heading is very regularly misunderstood... (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:53, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Hey don't sweat it, Jani's just dispensing with formalities—that's more a sign of respect for your (excellent) contributions than anything else.

Listings aren't necessary for the get out/get in sections (at least I can't think of any uses for listings in these sections right now). And what we did for the Chicago district get out sections is non-standard per template, but we agreed it made sense for Chicago, using it for a very specific purpose. Get out sections should not ever contain transport information, since that all goes into "Get in"—the Chicago get out sections serve as a navigational tool to direct readers to other city districts (or suburbs) that are relevant in the context of that article. That could be relevance by proximity, but usually that's less useful than relevance by theme. So if one district is most notable for, say, Polish restaurants and Polish museums, it is useful to link to another district with similar features, so that readers with that specific thematic interest can easily find all the relevant info in the city on that theme. (That theme should probably also be expounded on the overview page, with links to all appropriate district articles.)

I don't know if this type of get out info would be useful for San Francisco—perhaps less useful simply because there are fewer districts in total? --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 15:31, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the explanation. Ok where to start on this...yes I am definitely confused about the whole 'Get In' and 'Get Out' sections. Even after reading the template section I still find it a bit confusing. I really like the idea of a standardized template, the many virtues of which are espoused on the Template section. I also think it's really clever the way the templates have been constructed....using a sequential timeline combined with verbal headers that suggest action - "Do" "See" etc. I just cant't help thinking that it all falls down a little in the 'Get In' and 'Get Out' sections. I know that someone was probably trying to achieve symmetry here, but in reality they are not really that symmetrical. Also, I think that the useful timeline breaks down here too. I not exactly sure why....maybe it's because there is a lack of connectivity beween the naming convention used and spacial and temporal nature of the guide. 'Get In' and 'Get Out', in name, sound very utilitarian to me. I think of Buses, Ferries, Planes and route timetables. I don't think of daytrips and excursions to neighboring towns or national parks, or as Peter mentioned - a thematic or special interest tour into other areas. Perhaps a new section before "Get Out" - something that suggests you're leaving the area you arrived in (base camp), but only to explore around a bit more, something that's more elastic than the very finite "Get Out".....perhaps "Stretch Out" "Pop Out" (like the English say!) "Branch Out" "Connect To" "Trip Out" ;) "Explore" or something like this. Anyway I'm just thinking out loud here, and probably because this section tripped me up a bit.

To answer Peter's question though - I think that the number of districts will not matter in the end, and that even if you were in a really small place with just 2 districts, you could still find a common theme between the two to connect them. In short, I favor standardization, I think that is what tourists are looking for (makes things easy to understand and intuitive), and if it's included or excluded in one big City, then other's should get the same treatment.

Just a couple of minor footnotes...as for there not supposed to being any specific transport info in 'Get Out'...I don't know guys, in the Chicago Star Articles, I saw some bus line numbers mentioned here and also some specific info on CTA lines as well.

Thanks (WT-en) Asterix 13:25, 16 April 2008 (EDT) :)

Rule = all transport info belongs in "Get in," per template. That said, we do sometimes give little snippets of immediately relevant transport info attached to more specific listings, like restaurants, bars, or shops, or in the case of Chicago/Loop#Go next, specific suggestions of "day trips" from that particular district to others. So we might suggest a specific bus to hop on to get to a far flung restaurant, or something like that, but all basic transport info for the district should nonetheless go in the "get in" section.

And before you invest too much time in trying to change the section headers (and note that I do agree, the "get out" header leaves much to be desired), check out the scary, unfruitful discussions that have already taken place on section header naming at Project:Article templates ;) --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 16:40, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

"Usable" or "Guide" Article ??

Can someone reasonable (other than the "whispering desert winds guy???") give me an opinion on whether or not this article has enough content to justify it being labelled as a "guide" article.

It would be great if San Francisco could have one of these. If it's not ready yet - what else does it need, so that I can rectify? Thanks (WT-en) Asterix 14:12, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Yep, it's definitely a guide-level article now. Great work! --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 15:13, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

By the way, the article status criteria for districts is available here. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 15:30, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Excellent...Yay!

Cruises and Ferries

Hi, I added a listing on Angel Island and one on Bay Cruises, but they got lost in translation with all the edits that were being made. A. Island is on the main SF page but not here on the Wharf page? Alcatraz is the same kind of deal and it survived with its own listing here on the Wharf page. Personally, I think that they both should have a seperate listing somewhere on this page. Anyone got any thoughts on this? Thanks (WT-en) Asterix 13:42, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I think I was the one who deleted the Angel Island listing. My justification for it was simply that the listing had contact info for Blue & Gold Fleet cruises. I probably would have been okay with this, were it not for the fact that there's another ferry that also provides service to Angel Island from Fisherman's Wharf. It's probably perfectly fine to have an Angel Island listing, just as long as we list all the ferry carriers that provide service between there and the Wharf. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 14:04, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

No problem. I think though as things stand it probably needs a rewrite - perhaps a new sub-section heading (Bay Cruises and Ferries) with all of the various options, BayCruises, NightCruises, Lunch/Dinner Cruises, Alctz, Angel Isl, and East Bay ferry destinations. Underneath, could be a sub-listing of companies providing the services (Hornblower etc). Don't know if this would follow Mos though? Also, its funny because I always thought that from FWharf only Blue and Gold went to Angel Is. But I am not sure??? I thought that the the Alameda/Oakland guys just transferred to a Blue and Gold at Pier 41, but I may well be wrong about this. Do you know for sure?? Thanks again (WT-en) Asterix 15:00, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

A sub-heading would work well, so I just put it in. Wondering if we should throw in the Alcatraz cruise too...Anyway, looking at the ferry schedules, it looks like Alameda/Oakland has a ferry to Angel Island, which stops in the Wharf, but not one back to the Wharf. And only on weekends. Still, given that Blue & Gold has only about one ferry a day in each direction, it's probably best to put down all the available options. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 22:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I think definitely all ferry/cruise activity (listed above) should be included under this new heading. I am working on rewriting this a bit right now. As regards the Angel Isl...I'm still unsure about this so I emailed them, hopefully they'll respond. :) (WT-en) Asterix 14:12, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

PS The pictures you added to SF articles look great..really spruce them up!!

Ok so I changed this now. Feel free to revert edit if you don't like, There are a lot of ways to approach this - not sure which one would fit the Mos better?? (WT-en) Asterix 16:16, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Looks excellent to me. Just to let you know, I like the Alcatraz Cruise info where it is right now. Seeing as there's only one company offering cruises of Alcatraz, it only makes sense to keep their info under the Alcatraz Cruises, instead of listing them with the other cruise companies. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 00:26, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

agreed, Altz should be kept like this....Hornblower don't even advertise it on their website. It's really something that's driven by the National Park Service and not the private company providing the actual ferry service, and therefore it should be listed as such :)(WT-en) Asterix 13:11, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

New Photo

I just added a new photo to this article and just wanted to make sure it's ok. It's the cable car one..the workers are not identifiable imho and it is a public space...although saying that they are kind of the joint focus of the picture along with the cable car itself. I trust that this is still ok? (WT-en) Asterix 15:24, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Seems perfectly fine to me. Since you can't see their faces it should be okay. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 18:59, 25 August 2008 (EDT)