Talk:List of companies based in San Francisco
Must we all have to put every company that exists in SF?
I think we should only put the major ones, like Companies in fortune 500 or 1000 or something like that. Otherwise the list will just expand as long as it can.
Do we also need companies that "used" to be on SF?
I think it's important to include all the companies headquartered. Just because some might not be F 500 doesn't necessarily mean they don't contribute equally to the larger culture or to the city in which they reside. The page, linked from the SF article, has a lot of room to expand, and in giving a picture or San Francisco, the more information (companies) the better.
In regards to the "used to" section, I think they give more detail on SF's past, and specific information about the companies that are either defunct, acquired, or relocated. It's more information; interesting information.
Hey some cities don't even have 5 companies based there. San Francisco is dynamic, and this should help illustrate that.
Companies that are noteworthy enough to be listed on wikipedia probably should be listed even though nowhere near the F500, especially if they illuminate the culture of the area. For example, there are few places in the United States where Good Vibrations could have set up shop and thrived. As for companies that "used to" be in the area, it would be useful if the listing mentioned where they relocated to. I suspect some went to the suburbs, others far out of state -- are trends visible? MrRedwood 20:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Why are companies in or nearer to Oakland and San Jose included? The entire Bay Area is not focused around San Francisco, despite what residents there might think. krudmonk 16:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.120.19 (talk)