Talk:Folsom Street Fair

Geo Coordinates?

• Could anyone please ad the geo coordinates? --Nemissimo II 13:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, not familiar with geo-coordinates but in San Francisco the fair runs from 7th to 12th streets along Folsom Street and the side streets along that corridor. Benjiboi 20:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Folsom Street and Dore Street intersection: 37.77329°N 122.41229°W / 37.77329; -122.41229 calibrated to Google Maps. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 05:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Valid link

http://www.lodgephoto.com/galleries/usa/sanfrancisco/folsomstfair/ has been removed as spam but in looking at the site seems to actually just be a photo gallery. Benjiboi 19:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the bottom of the page? There's a shopping cart, and means to buy or license prints. That's spamvertizing in my book. HalJor 20:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In online world you could pretty much discount many good sources because they sell stuff and online photo sharing sites are well known to make purchasing an option. The photos are actually quite good at showing some more in-depth aspects of the event and anyone interested would benefit from seeing them, in a proper gallery or an online venue that is trying to stay in business. Benjiboi 20:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at WP:SPAM (section 2), the guidelines for posting a link to a video side are pretty relevant here: "A video is a spamming video if...It has text at this video page that would lead readers to a specific commercial site. For example, 'book available at xyzBooks dot net'." Further, on WP:EL (section 4), we should avoid "links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." LodgePhoto's welcome message is: "You can browse original travel photography from my collection and read travel and technical articles, buy high quality, custom-made fine art prints, or license images for commercial use (stock photography)." We're not just looking for "good pics" here -- we're looking for valid, non-commercial references, in accorance with Wikipedia policy. HalJor 20:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. I simply disagree and think that this falls into the YouTube arena where even though the site hosting the content isn't the best neutral source, the user posted content is still valid, and in this case, quite good. I've seen a lot of photos regarding that event and the were presented well with informative captions and you got a good sense that the event had a lot to offer beyond traditional street fairs. If the link is not allowed simply because of the site it's on perhaps the wiki policy needs to be revisited to allow for the changing landscape of user-generated content. Benjiboi 21:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the landscape is changing, but Wikipedia needs standards, and those are covered in the relevant policies -- off the top of my head, WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:COI, WP:V and WP:NOT. The "changing landscape of user-generated content" does not alter the need for verifiable, reputable sources. Again, this isn't a judgment call over the quality of the pics or the captions. If the same pics were presented in a fashion that complied with the various policies, I would argue for their inclusion. But this case is clearly commercial. HalJor 23:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you for making my point. The photographer used the "wrong" website therefore the use of that resource is gone. I agree that standards are helpful but within reason. In this case we seem to agree that the photos themselves are fine just on a website that seems to push it's commercial aspects too much. To me it seems like the link could stay as a valid resource but I've seen the photos already and I know what the event is about so I personally don't need them. I think the link adds to the article and would benefit anyone's understanding of the event but hopefully much better galleries can be found on more acceptable websites. Benjiboi 23:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My $0.02 is that it's best not to link to a random photo site like ofoto, flickr, slide, etc., from a Wikipedia article because the choice of galleries and images arbitrary and uneven. Nearly every article would have such links by that standard, in which case it's best to build image search and link into the wikipedia infrastructure (or just do a search yourself in google images) rather than adding links ad-hoc. Whether you call that spam or not is a matter of terminology; there's probably been a wikipedia guideline discussion on the subject before. I'm probably not going to take part in any resolution because I'm just popping in to add the article to the Bay Area wikiproject; if you have a debate, why not ask for a consensus and failing that seek moderation from the mediation people?Wikidemo 09:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think either of us care that much just trying to understand our differences.Benjiboi 20:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Folsom NYC article

Folsom NYC article Benjiboi 02:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Leather in SF section

About half of this article (the "History of the leather community in San Francisco" section) has almost nothing to do with the subject of the article - Folsom Street Fair. Unless anyone wishes to incorporate the relevant bits into the rest of the article, I'm going to remove that section. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It sems that the "History of the leather community in San Francisco" should be a seperate article TheTypingKat (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Francois Sagat photo relevence?

I have no problem with the photo appearing in the article, I just don't see the relevence of it being in the poster controversy section. If he had something to do with that can someone include details?Batvette (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Batvette (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Multiple issues: NPOV and ADVERT

I have added a multiple issues template. This article relies heavily on the primary source being the Folsom Street Fair website, which is not a secondary source and it's use should be challenged. Claims of attendance have been 400,000 attendees (which I removed), and 250,000 from Folsom's own numbers, but such claims are not verifiable. There is of course reason for event organizers to inflate proclaimed number of attendees. This article is placing too much weight on the promotional sources regarding of the event, and needs to adhere to strict historical / factual information verified by secondary sources or books. --Sxologist (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)