280:
the pool.It can be reached, or could when the outdoor pool was accessible to the public(access to this pool itself was blocked off in the late 20th century with masonary and steel bars), by swinging over on a rope. This opening has been bricked over and braced with iron bars. The condition of this iron and brickwork in the early 80's indicates that it was some decades old even then(most likely pre-WWII). I'm mentioning this here because I've always been curious as to just what it was. It doesn't seem to relate to drainage or the workings of the baths, and considerable effort seems to have been expended blocking it up. A very old San
Franciscan I once discussed this with thought it might be part of a series of tunnels for artillery sighting related to the presidio coastal defenses. If anyone knows anything about this particular tunnel, please post it. This may or may not be a notable feature of the Baths. Kinda depends on what the hell it is.
548:
anywhere except the top of the article. And, to me, when a tag begins with the words "This article needs...", it means that the tag goes at the top because it's a problem with the entire article, not just one section. Article tags should go at the top, and section tags should go in a section. Shortly after I moved the tag to the top, BMK moved it back to the bottom. Because of that, I looked at the edit history of the article to see when the tag was first added to the article and searched to see if there were any rules about where this tag should be placed. I discovered the tag was added in March 2014, when it was put at the top of the page by TRPoD.
561:
be placed, which is at the top. To me, BMK saying "MOS is not mandatory, it is a guideline only" is essentially saying screw MOS and screw the guidelines, and just do it my way because that's the way I like it. It comes down to this... I agreed with the editor who originally put the tag at the top in March 2014 and just moved it back to where he had put it in the first place. To me, BMK's reasonsing in his edit summary for putting it at the bottom misses the point. He said, "There is no need to annoy the general reader with a placement on the top, it can do just as well by the refs, where people who might do something about it will se."
408:
offered any very compelling reason, in my view. Moreover, such a placement may be positively misleading. Too many new editors think that the references of an article can be edited in the
References (or Notes) section, which of course they cannot in an article using the most common footnote formatting. (Shortened footnotes and list-defined references are another matter, but are far less commonly used.) Placing this template in the references section can only encourage that incorrect belief. For all these reasons, I am about to move the template back to the top, where in my view it belongs.
462:. However, your repeated edits to enforce your preferred version, against common practice if not a clear consensus, are at least arguably edit warring. But leaving aside the question of what is or is not edit warring, would you care to provide any actual reasons why you prefer the template to be located in the references section near the end of the article, rather than at the top, as other maintenance tags normally are placed? You haven't made a case for that so far, at least in my view, and I gave specific reasons above, to which you have not yet responded.
167:
77:
53:
87:
22:
155:
469:(which is after all merely an essay, not a guideline or a policy, albeit a widely cited essay) does not allow the revertor to simply have his or her own way, the discussion is supposed to lead to an eventual consensus, preferably by reasoned discussion. Or perhaps you would like to join in a wider discussion of the issue, in the RfC I just started at
907:
838:
402:
Maintenance templates in general, and this template in particular, are pretty much always placed at the top of the article when the apply to the entire article, rather than to just a section. In that position they serve to inform the reader at first glance that there is (or at least an editor asserts
586:
I randomly looked at about 100 articles and every one of them had the template at the top of the page. I couldn't find even one article that had it at the bottom. I understand that just because something is done a certain way in some articles doesn't necessarily mean it's correct. But, in this case,
279:
Just north of the (former) building is a small round pool so close to sea level that the waves wash over it during very high tides. This round pool has a cliff just north of it that faces due west. The cliff has a 6x3 foot hole carved in it about 4-6 feet north and several feet down from the edge of
263:
I would like to see more photos that show the original Sutro Baths in this article rather than the ruins. Really, only one good picture of the ruins is necessary, whereas there are many photos in the public domain that show the fully functioning baths. I will try to find some to add (time allowing),
795:
To get to the Cliff House from the Baths, you would start at the road which is in front of the lefthand side of the square tower at the left of the photo, then head a little bit more to the ocean, then follow the curving road around to the left and also downhill. The Cliff House was (and still is)
560:
So, while that page claims there's no consensus one way or the other, the manual of style is quite clear on where the tag "ought" to be placed (which BMK did not mention above in his (1)(2)(3)(4) list), and, most importantly, there seems to be an extremely clear standard about where that tag should
564:
I think that logic is backwards. The entire point of that tag, in my opinion, is precisely to let readers know as soon as they arrive that the article doesn't have enough sources. It shouldn't be hidden at the bottom of the page unless one doesn't want readers to easily know there's a problem. So
329:
An editor has been edit-warring to move the refimprove template from where I placed it, under "References", to the top of the page, with reference to MOS:LAYOUT. I believe that it is unnecessary to bother the general reader with the template at the top of the page, and that it does much more good
407:
which lists
Maintenance / dispute tags as item 3 in the list of header items, seem to me to create a strong case for placing this at the top of the article. While it is true that a guideline may have "occasional exceptions." I don't see any justification for making this an exception. Nor have you
547:
In my opinion, the tag clearly belongs at the top of the page and, frankly, I was surprised to find that an editor disagreed with this. I am the one who moved the tag from the references section to the top of the page a couple days ago. I did that because I don't think I have ever seen that tag
705:
If I put this in probably someone will immediately take it out, but sometime in the 1970s until about 1982 (the AIDS crisis) there was an on-premises, heterosexual, well-known (in those circles) sex club in San
Francisco that used the name Sutro Baths. It was a heterosexual version of a
674:
Updating: It was called Sutro
Bathhouse and it was the only co-ed bathhouse in San Francisco during the 80's. It was indeed a sex club and I worked there when I was 18 and I believe it was open until about 1985. True, the aids crisis pretty much killed it, but the stories I could tell!
636:
DES, I understand. I think it was a great idea so I'm very glad you started it. This issue needs to be resolved not just for this article, but for all articles. And thank you also for the od thing you just did. I didn't know how to do that. :)
443:
Hmmm. Well, ArbCom has ruled that edit-warring to enforce non-mandatory guidelines is disruptive, so I guess you have to ask yourself if ot;s worth the hassle or not, considering that it can lead to being blocked for edit warring.
180:
63:
802:
The photo is taken either from what is now the parking lot of Lands End
Lookout, or from the green path which heads north from Louis', along a cliff. I don't know what was there when the photo was taken.
997:“ Shortly afterwards, the developers left San Francisco and claimed insurance money”. Ok, did they get it? What did the insurance company think, and why did the developers leave town? More info needed.
386:
iscuss on the talk page, and not to edit war over it. I invite the editor's comments, with the hope that they will not respond by simply citing MOS:LAYOUT again, given the points that I've made above.
806:
998:
761:
877:
Actually, only the southernmost part of the pools was converted to an ice skating rink. There was a wall between the north side of the rink and the remaining, increasingly dilapidated, pools.
556:"There is currently no consensus on where in the article to place this template, but according to MOS:LAYOUT, maintenance templates ought be placed after hatnotes, at the start of the article."
776:
587:
it appears that close to 100% of articles that use that template have it placed at the top. To me, this is evidence of clear consensus by practice without it being "official" consensus.
1035:
185:
504:
If BMK has a reason for the tag to be in an unusual place, he should state it. He has not done so, despite starting and contributing to this RFC. I do not understand his motivation.
1030:
1040:
237:
I wonder if anyone knows the name of the person that burned it down or if it would be possible to find out searching police records? Curious if they still live in SF.
807:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Cliff+House/@37.778507,-122.5161695,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x808587b59d73dbed:0x5ef0b938c3c457f3!8m2!3d37.778507!4d-122.5139808
458:
When a new user entres a BRD discussion, gives reasons for a revert, adn then makes a single revert, that usre is not edit warring, as I would think you should know,
1025:
139:
330:
under "References", where editors who are interested in that sort of thing, and might do something to fix it, will see it, without bothering the general reader.
145:
309:
It might be related to the water intake system for the Sutro Baths. There once was a large water pump located deep within the tunnels just north of the baths.
796:
farther out into the ocean than the Baths, because the Baths were in a small bay. The Cliff House would be out of the frame to the left, and lower down.
743:
Fascinating, but not relevant to our article. Where was it, BTW? (Neighborhood, I mean, I don't need an address - can't read the fine print in the ad).
1045:
1020:
115:
565:
it's not about "annoying" readers; it's about letting readers know right away that the article needs help and encouraging them to provide it.
354:(2) The Arbitration Committee has expressed in strong terms that edit warring to enforce a non-mandatory guideline is disruptive behavior
360:(4) The documentation for the refimprove template says "There is currently no consensus on where in the article to place this template".
296:
285:
244:
1002:
765:
404:
100:
58:
690:
780:
726:
428:
has provided no reason why this article should be a exception to the the guidelines and to the practice followed in other articles.
811:
Source: Personal knowledge. But there are many photos which verify this, including some which show the Cliff House, on this site:
203:
The article says the baths opened in 1896, but the accompanying drawing is captioned as being "circa 1894". Which is correct? —
33:
799:
On the Google map, the square tower was between "Louis'" (restaurant) and the curve in the road just before the Cliff House.
281:
983:
172:
579:
I just wanted to note a very interesting page that someone linked to in another discussion. It's the page that lists
528:
656:
There is a clear (and overwhelming) consensus that this tag should be placed at the top of articles. Snow close.
979:
470:
39:
21:
892:
823:
608:
Someone started an RfC about this issue, titled "RfC: Location of Tag", on the
Template:Refimprove talk page.
300:
918:
849:
748:
686:
495:
449:
392:
248:
678:
240:
226:
114:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
883:
814:
682:
403:
that there is) a problem with the article. That very consistent practice, along with the guideline
914:
888:
845:
819:
744:
715:
629:
491:
483:
459:
445:
425:
412:
388:
509:
433:
92:
880:
Source: "Click above for a photographic tour of Sutro Baths", near the bottom of this page:
625:
I did that, because I wanted to form a consensus that was broader than this single article.
222:
221:, I changed the date to 1894 since the sources listed all cite 1894 as the dedication date.
208:
466:
365:
734:
665:
642:
615:
592:
570:
314:
941:
295:
It would be interesting to see where it is on a picture, with so many pictures here. --
265:
1014:
711:
707:
626:
480:
421:
409:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
955:
951:
947:
505:
476:
429:
76:
52:
655:
218:
204:
730:
661:
638:
611:
609:
588:
566:
310:
162:
110:
105:
82:
935:
866:
he baths were converted into an ice skating rink" - clarification": -->
154:
558:
551:
In March 2015, it was moved back down to the references section by BMK.
760:
Maybe it is. Shows the impact on popular culture, the memory remains.
938:- To indicate "around", "approximately", or "about", the use of the
884:
http://www.cliffhouseproject.com/environs/sutrobaths/sutro_baths.htm
815:
http://www.cliffhouseproject.com/environs/sutrobaths/sutro_baths.htm
1006:
987:
922:
896:
853:
827:
784:
769:
752:
738:
719:
694:
669:
646:
631:
619:
596:
574:
536:
513:
499:
485:
453:
437:
414:
396:
318:
304:
289:
269:
252:
230:
211:
862:"he baths were converted into an ice skating rink" - clarification
264:
but I wanted to put this here to encourage others to do the same.
405:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Layout#Order of article elements
357:(3) Edit-warring to enforce a guideline is not immune from 3RR.
15:
153:
380:
everted by me, the editor's response should have been to
490:
Bullshit, edit warring is edit warring. Enjoy your RfC.
104:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
659:
584:
562:
552:
549:
583:
article that currently uses this refimprove template.
554:I found the Template:Refrimprove page, which says,
144:This article has not yet received a rating on the
654:The RfC has been snow-closed with the decision: "
729:San Francisco has a fascinating history indeed.
479:, do you have any further views on this matter?
791:The Baths "as seen from the Cliff House" -- NOT
333:The editor mentioned should be made aware that
1036:Low-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles
8:
1031:Start-Class San Francisco Bay Area articles
19:
1041:San Francisco Bay Area task force articles
676:
47:
999:2A00:23C7:E287:1901:E5C3:F56D:8023:3123
762:2A00:23C7:E287:1901:E5C3:F56D:8023:3123
49:
1026:Unknown-importance California articles
725:Wow, I had to look this up myself and
124:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject California
777:2601:644:4301:4930:E271:704A:9B7:3821
7:
98:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
14:
259:Photographs, Blueprints, Drawings
181:San Francisco Bay Area task force
905:
836:
775:It's true. Never made it there.
165:
85:
75:
51:
20:
1046:WikiProject California articles
1021:Start-Class California articles
465:Please note that the D part of
127:Template:WikiProject California
785:23:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
753:03:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
695:02:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
647:16:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
632:16:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
620:16:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
597:15:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
575:14:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
537:12:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
514:11:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
500:08:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
486:08:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
454:07:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
438:07:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
415:07:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
397:20:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
253:07:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
290:17:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
178:This article is supported by
173:San Francisco Bay Area portal
118:and see a list of open tasks.
923:03:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
897:02:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
854:03:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
828:01:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
727:indeed, here's an ad for it.
720:06:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
212:02:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
1007:17:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
988:07:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
946:template is preferred over
770:17:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
701:Sex club called Sutro Baths
670:07:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
305:21:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
1062:
525:support standard placement
270:17:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
146:project's importance scale
739:05:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
319:05:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
282:Ezra c v mildew desire Jr
231:16:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
161:
143:
70:
46:
471:Template talk:Refimprove
532:aka The Red Pen of Doom
158:
101:WikiProject California
64:San Francisco Bay Area
28:This article is rated
368:, since the editor's
157:
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
343:mandatory, it is a
130:California articles
325:Template placement
159:
34:content assessment
697:
681:comment added by
533:
255:
243:comment added by
200:
199:
196:
195:
192:
191:
93:California portal
1053:
977:
973:
969:
965:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
913:
909:
908:
874:
873:
869:
844:
840:
839:
657:
534:
531:
275:The Strange Door
238:
175:
170:
169:
168:
132:
131:
128:
125:
122:
95:
90:
89:
88:
79:
72:
71:
66:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1061:
1060:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1011:
1010:
995:
993:Suspicious Fire
939:
933:
906:
904:
875:
871:
867:
865:
864:
837:
835:
793:
703:
529:
327:
277:
261:
171:
166:
164:
129:
126:
123:
120:
119:
91:
86:
84:
61:
29:
12:
11:
5:
1059:
1057:
1049:
1048:
1043:
1038:
1033:
1028:
1023:
1013:
1012:
994:
991:
932:
931:Circa template
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
863:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
792:
789:
788:
787:
758:
757:
756:
755:
702:
699:
652:
651:
650:
649:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
540:
539:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
502:
474:
463:
418:
417:
362:
361:
358:
355:
352:
326:
323:
322:
321:
307:
276:
273:
260:
257:
236:
234:
233:
202:
198:
197:
194:
193:
190:
189:
186:Low-importance
177:
176:
160:
150:
149:
142:
136:
135:
133:
116:the discussion
97:
96:
80:
68:
67:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1058:
1047:
1044:
1042:
1039:
1037:
1034:
1032:
1029:
1027:
1024:
1022:
1019:
1018:
1016:
1009:
1008:
1004:
1000:
992:
990:
989:
985:
981:
972:approximately
943:
937:
930:
924:
920:
916:
915:Beyond My Ken
912:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
894:
890:
889:Dudley Brooks
886:
885:
881:
878:
870:
861:
855:
851:
847:
846:Beyond My Ken
843:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
825:
821:
820:Dudley Brooks
817:
816:
812:
809:
808:
804:
800:
797:
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
773:
772:
771:
767:
763:
754:
750:
746:
745:Beyond My Ken
742:
741:
740:
736:
732:
728:
724:
723:
722:
721:
717:
713:
709:
708:gay bathhouse
700:
698:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
672:
671:
667:
663:
660:
648:
644:
640:
635:
634:
633:
630:
628:
624:
623:
622:
621:
617:
613:
610:
598:
594:
590:
585:
582:
578:
577:
576:
572:
568:
563:
559:
557:
553:
550:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
538:
535:
526:
523:
522:
515:
511:
507:
503:
501:
497:
493:
489:
488:
487:
484:
482:
478:
475:
472:
468:
464:
461:
457:
456:
455:
451:
447:
442:
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
420:I agree with
416:
413:
411:
406:
401:
400:
399:
398:
394:
390:
385:
384:
379:
378:
374:old edit was
373:
372:
367:
359:
356:
353:
350:
349:
348:
342:
341:
336:
335:
334:
331:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
306:
302:
298:
297:128.72.49.188
294:
293:
292:
291:
287:
283:
274:
272:
271:
267:
258:
256:
254:
250:
246:
245:76.103.48.146
242:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
215:
214:
213:
210:
206:
187:
184:(assessed as
183:
182:
174:
163:
156:
152:
151:
147:
141:
138:
137:
134:
117:
113:
112:
107:
103:
102:
94:
83:
81:
78:
74:
73:
69:
65:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
996:
934:
910:
887:
882:
879:
876:
841:
818:
813:
810:
805:
801:
798:
794:
759:
704:
683:StaciVaughan
677:— Preceding
673:
653:
607:
580:
555:
524:
419:
382:
381:
376:
375:
370:
369:
363:
346:
345:
344:
339:
338:
332:
328:
278:
262:
235:
201:
179:
109:
99:
40:WikiProjects
337:(1) MOS is
239:—Preceding
223:Breadyornot
30:Start-class
1015:Categories
121:California
111:California
106:U.S. state
59:California
936:MOS:CIRCA
347:guideline
266:vernajast
712:deisenbe
691:contribs
679:unsigned
241:unsigned
976:approx.
506:Maproom
477:Maproom
430:Maproom
968:around
530:TRPoD
467:WP:BRD
366:WP:BRD
219:Gwalla
205:Gwalla
36:scale.
974:, or
948:circa
942:circa
731:Rabit
662:Czoal
639:Czoal
612:Czoal
589:Czoal
581:every
567:Czoal
351:only.
311:Rabit
1003:talk
984:talk
919:talk
911:Done
893:talk
868:edit
850:talk
842:Done
824:talk
781:talk
766:talk
749:talk
735:talk
716:talk
687:talk
666:talk
643:talk
616:talk
593:talk
571:talk
510:talk
496:talk
450:talk
434:talk
393:talk
364:Per
315:talk
301:talk
286:talk
249:talk
227:talk
209:Talk
964:ca.
627:DES
527:--
492:BMK
481:DES
460:BMK
446:BMK
426:BMK
422:DES
410:DES
389:BMK
340:not
217:Hi
140:???
108:of
1017::
1005:)
986:)
980:MJ
970:,
966:,
962:,
960:ca
958:,
956:c.
954:,
950:,
944:}}
940:{{
921:)
895:)
852:)
826:)
783:)
768:)
751:)
737:)
718:)
710:.
693:)
689:•
668:)
645:)
618:)
595:)
573:)
512:)
498:)
452:)
436:)
424:.
395:)
317:)
303:)
288:)
268:|
251:)
229:)
207:|
188:).
62::
1001:(
982:(
978:-
952:c
917:(
891:(
872:]
848:(
822:(
779:(
764:(
747:(
733:(
714:(
685:(
664:(
658:"
641:(
614:(
591:(
569:(
508:(
494:(
473:?
448:(
432:(
391:(
383:D
377:R
371:B
313:(
299:(
284:(
247:(
225:(
148:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
