![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Shouldn't this be moved to either San Francisco Municipal Railway or Muni? I presume the latter is the most commonly used name within SF, though I suppose it might be other "Muni"s which would require disambiguation. -- rbrwr
I took a hint from Muni's own website, which says "San Francisco Muni" - disambig addition to most common name. Stan 13:18 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
For accuracy's sake, it probably should be filed under "San Francisco Municipal Railway", which is the full legal name of the agency. They even refer to themselves that way in the copyright notice at the bottom of previously-mentioned webpage. -- Feedle 02:12, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The article includes the following text:
5 hybrid streetcar and subway lines (using articulated hybrid vehicles and known as "Muni Metro")
This description is a little convoluted, isn't it? The Muni Metro falls pretty firmly into the (admittedly broad) category of light rail. In addition, I'm not sure what "hybrid" means in reference to the vehicles. They are standard light rail equipment; for many North American readers, the word will evoke a vehicle that runs on both gas and electric power, like the Toyota Prius. Is there any reason why this shouldn't be changed to something like the following:
"5 light rail lines. These lines, collectively known as Muni Metro, run articulated light rail vehicles. The lines include underground, grade-separated, and street running portions."
-- Jfruh 17:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Anyone else think that the article needs to be cleaned up a little bit to put stuff into sections? I moved some stuff into their own sections, but the first section/introduction is still really long and I don't have any ideas on what to do with the rest of the stuff there. Octoferret 05:19, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Does anybody want to do this? The Metro lines are somewhat detailed already, you can add them, like this:
(Just fill in the gaps, and maybe a separate article for each line, as done already for the Metro lines)
-- Geopgeop 09:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know the planning specifications for Muni's trolleybus lines? Obviously lines such as the 1-California need to be run by trolleybuses (though Diesel substitution has been done). However, other lines such as the 30-Stockton, 14-Mission, 45 Union-Stockton are all relatively flat, and could easily be operated by diesel. Why are certain flat routes trolleybuses, and likewise, why are other certain flat routes (38 Geary, 15 Third), not trolleybus lines?
-- Jmohler1970 23:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
How about adding a section on Muni General Managers? The People's Railway has the detail pre-1980, but I think I can supply the 1952-present info. Let's see:
1952-1959 Charles Miller 1960-1968 Vernon Anderson 1968-1974 John Woods 1974-1982 Curtis Green 1983-1986 Harold Geissenheimer 1987-1991 William Stead 1991-1993 Johnny Stein 1993-1996 Phil Adams 1997-1999 Emilio Cruz 1999-2002 Michael Burns 2002-present Fred Stephens
Some dates may be off a little, but I think the sequence is correct. Note that until 1993 Muni was part of the San Francisco Public Utilties Commission and that effective Mar/Jul 2000 a new Municipal Transportation Agency was created. Nevertheless, the position of Municipal Railway General Manager has endured.
I encourage others to edit this information.
The usage notes section claims that Muni Metro is sometimes referred to as "the underground". I've never heard anyone say this; it sounds very British English to me, and also kind of counterintuitive (since much of the Muni Metro is not actually underground). I hate to be the type of person who slaps cite needed labels on things, but can anyone show any kind of evidence for this usage? -- Jfruh ( talk) 17:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I say that because I can find nothing here about the infamous "Muni meltdown" of the 1990s, nor of the current meltdown regarding the totally fucked-up implementation of the new "T" line. I thought there might be at least a mention of this in the history section, but nothing's there.
Somebody want to take a crack at correcting this glaring omission? Or is this article being tended to by Muni flunkies? + ILike2BeAnonymous 20:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the fleet list should be added to this article
Image:Sfmuni logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Due mostly to the diligent efforts of one particular young editor here, this article is in danger of turning into a page which will only be of interest to foamers. There are waaaay too many pictures of transit vehicles here; three or four ought to be enough, unless warranted by a particularly historic specimen. And the detailed listings of transit-vehicle minutiae is not what is wanted in a general-interest article. There are plenty of web sites out there for folks who drool over pictures of buses and endless roster lists, etc. Let's not turn this page into another of those site, please. + ILike2BeAnonymous 00:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with what you said. There are too much pictures. Chris! my talk 00:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
While I won't phrase my comments in such inflammatory terms, I do agree that we can do without such detailed information. I think we should only have around five pictures on the article, one for each type of bus or car used by Muni (e.g. one cable car, one F-line car, one LRV, one bus, and one trolley). Throw in an articulated bus if you like. -- 71.141.117.207 00:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that if the fleet information is kept in the article a lot of it should be cut out. The list of historic streetcars probably fits better in the F Market article, and I don't see much point in listing buses that aren't used anymore. The whole thing probably could be reduced to a single table with some basic stuff, such as the number of each type of bus and the manufacturer or something like that. I also don't think there needs to be a whole section on Muni's divisions, either. Octoferret 06:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Goodshoped35110s 05:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I made a table showing the changes I suggested in my comment above:
User:Octoferret/Muni_fleet
Anyone have any thoughts on replacing the current fleet section in the article with something like that?
--
Octoferret
04:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This page, unlike other pages, has most of their buses, because, as Muni's site says, they have a very diverse fleet, and I believe I should show it off, unless I get a warning from the agency. And I think it is against the agency.
Goodshoped35110s 00:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
P.s. Where's the trolleybuses?
It doesn't matter what MUNI said. This is Wikipedia, and more importantly it is not owned by MUNI! So we have to reduce the number of pictures. Don't reintroduce the picture until discussion is done. Chris! my talk 01:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, you can put those pictures in your user page, all you want. That is acceptable. But don't attempt to link your page to here, as your page is not an article. Chris! my talk 01:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Because of the amount of un-needed images, I think what's good is that some of the images here (or that were here) be moved to Wikimedia Commons' San Francisco Municipal Railway page in order to ease congestion and confusion, as well as to unturn this page into a rail foamer's page. I know one myself. So, if anyone wants me to relocate former Muni images to Wikimedia Commons, please reply on my talk page. Thanks! Goodshoped35110s 02:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Please help!
This page was created to relieve overcrowded conditions at the Muni site over at Wikipedia. If you can, please help upload pictures to commons, then placing them in the appropriate galleries. IF you can, please help. Your help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Goodshoped35110s 04:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the reason why PCC 1061 is still on the page when you got the image with an Orion bus, Melbourne tram, and Philadelphia PCC 1055 on there, I mean, I don't see the point why? - Goodshoped35110s 23:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It was retired six months later. This image was taken in 2006, not 1988. - Goodshoped35110s 04:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Warning: If any of these are considered vandalism, it is not intended to be. It is to notify users about image postings on this site.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodshoped35110s ( talk • contribs) 23:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
As a reminder, please do not use this talk page as a forum. So unless you have an issue about the page, do not turn this page into a forum of general discussion. Thanks Chris! my talk 01:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishomingtang ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
As to all fairness, let's just remove all the images from the page because if the editors can't decide on which images to keep, let's not have any at all. We can vote on them later on my User talk:Goodshoped35110s/San Francisco Municipal Railway. Thanks! User:Goodshoped35110s/Welcome Signature03:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC). Oh, and let's not turn this in a forum, but, seriously, let's just do away with all the images for now until we can come up with a compromise. For the meantime, you can view the images here:
I've added some (more specifically, six) pictures back. The article was looking too bland, and I was glazing over the text. Due to seemingly inactive participation on this talk page regarding this matter, I decided to take matters in my own hands as per WP:BOLD. The six pictures show the five different modes of transport used by Muni (a sixth was a different model of diesel bus), therefore showing the diversity of the Muni fleet while simultaneously keeping the number of pictures down and not resorting to a pointless tucked-away gallery. I chose these pictures as they seemed to me to be the most prominently shown in their respective categories. Some of the pictures' placements (the LRV, for example) were strategic. So instead of having a spartan article without discussion, let's try a different path and work on that. We can discuss, but let's not detract from the quality of the article, both in content and in aesthetics. -- 71.141.117.207 03:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I am proposing that I move the fleet section and the bus yard section to another page because it's pretty much cluttering up the article. This is to make the article for general interest, while the fleet history can be described on another page, without conflicting this page. - Go od sh op ed 00:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Because this page looks like a dust bowl, I am adding images to their respective sections to liven up the article (which will total up to 8 images). -- Goodsh oped3 511 0s 03:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
In addition to the current fleet, I am proposing that whether it's ok to add a historic bus fleet, which is currently stored at Woods division per Octoferret's images on Flickr. I have the bus info, and they are scattered all over the place. So what will it be? - Go od sh op ed 04:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
...no one may care about this, but they scrapped all of the New Flyer diesel fleet. - Go od sh op ed 04:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Bits of this article read like a pamphlet (especially the "did you know" section). 86.112.0.41 20:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I still feel that this article appears to be a bit of a how-to guide. For instance, it is worth mentioning in a transit article that fares and service had to be adjusted (for instance) due to changing economic or political conditions. On the other hand, describing where to buy a Fast Pass does not seem encyclopaedic. MKoltnow 04:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Per the quick-fail criteria of the GA process, any article that contains cleanup banners (such as those in the intro and History sections) must be failed immediately, and does not require an in-depth review. Please remedy any issues brought up by such banners, and remove them before choosing to renominate. You may also wish to read in detail about what is a Good Article, in order to assess the article's readiness for renomination. If you feel this decision was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky talk 21:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)