Talk:San Francisco Municipal Railway/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Article status

Right now, I think the article is pretty good. The only major edits needed is the expansion of the History section to include the history of Muni between World War II (when Muni acquired the Market Street Railway) and the 1970s (construction of the Muni Metro). After that, I think most of the concerns would be stylistic issues and copyediting. —Kurykh 04:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So we going to nom this for a good article? —B o L 04:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. If it passes, good. If it fails, then try peer review. —Kurykh 04:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

They call that something else on Uncyclopedia...and I think we need to archive this talk page. Any thoughts? —B o L 04:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sweet. —B o L 04:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It still has cleanup banners tho.Blarf (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Where? —Kurykh 23:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

History section. Blarf (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not a cleanup banner. —Kurykh 23:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Vehicle & Stats sections

IMO the fleet info of the stats section should be removed and the vehicle section brought back. The stats section seems more like it should simply contain route info and "trivia", as about half of that falls outside the scope of the fleet article. Thoughts? Blarf (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, information about the vehicle fleet counts as a statistic. But I did change the template from a "main article" one to a "see also" one and added the Muni line article to it. Thoughts? —Kurykh 22:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good enough. —B o L 06:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The issue that I see is that there are stats all over the article, and the stats in the "stats" section fall into two distinct categories.Blarf (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Which one, foamer and non-general-interest? Because I was thinking of removing them on New Years day. —B o L 22:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Sorta. There's enough general info about the fleet to appeal/inform the general population, IMO. Thus, random route stats belong in a section of their own, and a brief summary of the fleet article should be in its own section. Blarf (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

They already do... —B o L 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts for improving the article

While the article is certainly comprehensive, here are two thoughts.

First, a persistent reaction I have is an "non-encyclopedic tone." Without trolling through a lot of WP policies and guidelines, too much of the article reads like a travel brochure or advice to tourists, rather than an encyclopedia. Here are some examples:

"if one asks a driver for directions to the trolley when one really wants a cable car, one may receive the wrong directions."

Non-encyclopedic tone. Suggestion- simply delete, it's duplicative of the preceding sentence.

"One could reasonably argue that the cable cars are also a 'heritage railway.'"

Non-encyclopedic tone and original research. Suggestion: delete unless you have a reliable published source making this argument, in which case, quote and cite the source.

"Note that these routes are not standard express routes ..."

Non-encyclopedic tone. Suggestion: How about simply, "These are not standard express routes ..."

"Two interesting intersections of note:"

Non-encyclopedic tone. Suggestion: delete.

That's the idea. Any place that sounds like a personal comment, observation or aside from the writer to the reader I suggest be deleted or edited. You might want to look around WP's policies and guidelines on style for more suggestions.

Second, there is too much detail for an encyclopedia reader here - too much of the detail sounds like it's addressed to a local user of the system. A rule of thumb I've heard used is "What would a reader in Berlin or Bangkok be interested in knowing about this topic." For example, the whole "Special service" section could be condensed significantly.

If I were reviewing the article for GA status, I would hold or fail the article until these issues were addressed - however, rather than have another "failed" banner on this page, I making these suggestions here! There's a lot of good work that has been put into this article, but these two issues really should be taken up before GA status could be awarded. NorCalHistory (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That's actually true, it's like if Muni wrote the spam page themselves, and they are under a lot of controversy right now. But, yeah, i'll get to removing them eventually. —B o L 02:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

GA failed

This article has a long way to go, I'm afraid.

Lead needs to be expanded
Title - Articles should be known by their common names. You use one name for the article title, and refer to it by another "common name" in the main body. Please fix this.
Please prosify the list in the first section
Overview section. The overview is traditionally the lead. Also the overview is unsourced.
Logo needs spefici FU rationale
Logo, routenames, name section needs references otherwise it will appear like OR.
Sourcing problems abound throughout the article

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

7th largest or 8th largest?

According to this article, the SF Muni Railway is 7th largest in the world. According to List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines, it is the 8th. Maybe these two statements in these two articles should be reconciled or clarified? --Filll (talk | wpc) 00:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

- Two things to note: a.) You mean SF MUNI is the 7th or 8th largest in the US, and b.) I think we should use the more recent up-to-date data since this article uses 2006 sources versus 2009 sources of the other page. timeo 00:03, 12 April 2010

Bus Crisis of 1970?

Was there actually a bus crisis in 1970? Wouldn't the bulk of the fleet then have been just a year old? I lived through the bus availability crisis of the early 1980s when the GMCs, which I thought entered service in 1969, all got old at once. Is 1970 a typo and does it in fact refer the situation that I recall? If it was an earlier episode, could someone expand on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlez53 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

When were the pole and flag stops and the Muni stop shelters first used?

When were the Muni pole stops first used? Same goes for the Muni flag stops and the Muni stop shelters (That shelter was first installed between 1980 and 1990). The Good Guy (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on San Francisco Municipal Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on San Francisco Municipal Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on San Francisco Municipal Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Consensus opinion or BART bashing?

"In the 1950s and '60s, the neighboring BART system had been conceived on a grandiose level (described as one of the "great planning disasters" of the 20th century[89] )"

The sentence above is not NPOV. It also does not reflect "consensus" amongst transport professionals, planners, historians and so forth today - in 2016. Sir Peter Hall was a giant in his field, but he had his critics, and "Great Planning Disasters" was published 36 years ago. If the above is truly the consensus today, then it should stay - but if not, then it needs rewriting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.248 (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on San Francisco Municipal Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Questionable Intro

This line: "In a 2010 anti-union rant in the free alternative weekly SF Weekly, one writer claims that the fleet average speed of 8.1 mph (13.0 km/h) is the slowest major transit system in America, while blaming the slowness, non-productivity, and lack of services on the union.", seems out of place for an intro. Why exactly does it matter what a columnist said about the estimated speed of Muni, and especially why does an opinion qualify to place in the first paragraph? Belongs lower in the article, especially with the union accusation. At the very least, it could be stated that Muni is slow, and then elaborate on the union variable below. Without logical reason for the opinion insert, the appropriation action would be minimizing or deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.160.129 (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and changed. If you want to add more detail about Muni's union difficulties to the article, be bold and go right ahead. Conifer (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The SF Weekly article referenced in the intro does not provide enough evidence for the claim that Muni is the "slowest major urban transit system in America." I suggest taking this sentence out and removing reference to the questionable SF weekly article, which, among other things, provides a faulty analysis of Muni's problems in the first place. I checked the wikipedia pages of NYC transit authority and the Chicago "L" and despite problems facing those systems, the introduction remains silent about the problems those systems face and addresses problems at a later point. Additionally, I think it would help the article structurally to push the history section up in the article. I'd recommend putting it after the introduction.98.113.21.142 (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)