Talk:San Francisco Municipal Railway/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about San Francisco Municipal Railway. 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

Article name

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

...such as Mountain unicycling, though that seems to be MUni (with two caps) rather than Muni. --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 web site now says "San Francisco Municipal Railway" at both top and bottom of the home page. I don't think the term "San Francisco Muni" is in common usage; the local common name is "Muni" and the formal name is "San Francisco Municipal Railway". We cannot have "Muni" directly as an article title, because that article already exists as a dab page, but we could disambiguate it to "Muni, San Francisco". I think the article should be renamed to either "San Francisco Municipal Railway" or "Muni, San Francisco"; my personal preference is for the former but either is acceptable. -- Chris j wood 12:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree; "San Francisco Municipal Railway" is the official name and should be the title of the article. Quincy 04:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Hybrid"

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)

No reason at all, that is a much better description than mine. Please go ahead. Although given that this is a US subject, subway may be better than underground. -- Chris j wood 17:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Underground" is a perfectly fine adjective. Sure, I would say "the subway" instead of "the Underground", but I think "underground" is a better description in this context. Quincy 04:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is the fact that the vehicles can accommadate entry from street level (like a streetcar) as well as from a high platform (like a metro train). As for the routes, hybrid seems OK, since parts are like a streetcar route (with mixed-traffic running) and other parts are like light rail (ie dedicated right-of-way) or a metro (grade-sep with fare gates)--Jason McHuff 04:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

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)

List of Muni bus and rail lines

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)

Instead of making an article for each line, I went ahead made a list for all of the bus and rail lines together at List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines Octoferret 10:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Trolleybus lines

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?

There is no clear pattern that says whether a line is a trolleybus line or not. Most are due to historical reasons, and others are due to practical reasons. The geography of the route usually has no effect on whether it should be converted to trolleybus service (except perhaps the 1 California in your example). Also, the 15 Third is preparing to be converted into light rail service (see the Third Street Light Rail Project) and the 38 Geary conversion into BRT or even light rail service is in the planning stages. Please correct me if I am wrong. Physicq210 03:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Most of the trolleybus network was created in the late 40s when streetcar lines were being ripped out. It may have been a way to get people to complain less about the loss of streetcars. Others were added later. 1-California and 24-Divisadero were added later because of the steep hills. 31-Balboa takes some pressure off of 38-Geary

--Jmohler1970 23:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Muni General Managers

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.

Why do we need these anyway? -Go od sh op ed 04:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodshoped35110s (talk • contribs)

"the Underground"?

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)

Actually, strictly speaking, the Muni Metro is the underground portion, the tunnels built in conjunction with the BART tunnels. However, it sounds very unlikely to me that anybody would refer to the Muni Metro as "the Underground," and you should not be reluctant to slap a Fact tag on that statement. --Tkynerd 17:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole light rail system is branded as "metro" by Muni. See for instance here, where "Muni Metro system maps" include both above- and underground sections. --Jfruh (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's as may be, and it's really a side issue anyway. (PS I'm not-so-patiently waiting for the page you linked to to load as I write this! But regardless of what Muni actually does, it's more than a bit silly to use the term "metro," which is a recognized generic term for underground railways, to refer to conventional aboveground streetcar lines.) The use of the term "underground" is what was really at issue, and I hope you will place the Fact tag there if you haven't already. --Tkynerd 18:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is a whitewash

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)

Try looking at Muni Metro for the meltdowns. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a much more sanguine (and accurate) look at the system. But it seems to me that some of the info in that article should be ported back here, in a pared-down form. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fleet

I think the fleet list should be added to this article

Fair use rationale for Image:Sfmuni logo.png

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)

Time to stop this from turning into a bus- and rail-foamer's page.

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)

That's a good idea! Goodshoped35110s 04:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You want to stop this from turning into a foamer page? Well, I have a possible idea!

I am currently migrating images to Wikimedia Commons from the Municipal Railway page in Wikipedia. There are only 4 pictures left, and that's to curb transit foamers.

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! After all, we can take a step by downgrading a near-foamer to a regular page.

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)

Click Here... Goodshoped35110s 04:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I'll come clean. I somehow added it, but removed it. I don't really do that anymore. Instead, some other IP addresses are adding the foamer content, somehow more then I was, and I'm somehow supposed to know everything about that. So I'll come clean and I apologize for any inconvenience I caused. It won't happen again. From now on, I'll watch this page for any vandalism/adding foamer content and serve them. --Goodsh oped3 511 0s 02:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the trolley bus and the New Flyer?

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)

Ok. How's this. Let's make a compromise. How about you move some of the images to this page so we don't bug the others and reduce the bus-foaming of this article. And I know this is Wikipedia. Please discuss this on my talk page and work out a deal/compromise. Goodshoped35110s 01:39, 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)

Migrating Images to Wikimedia Commons

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)

Why not just go ahead and do that? No restrictions on that so far as I know. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to, but I would like to know where are the pictures so that way I can queue them on my userpage and then move them out to the Muni page over at commons. ++Goodshoped35110s 04:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean you want to know where the pictures are that have been deleted from this page? You can find them by going back through this article's history to previous versions that had the pictures in them. The pictures themselves are still there, unless someone deleted them because of copyright issues. Once you find them, simply put them on your userpage, or wherever you want them. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Now, I have the page set up, but I need some help.

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

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)

Oh, and the image can easily be replaced by the image embedded below:

It was retired six months later. This image was taken in 2006, not 1988. -Goodshoped35110s 04:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And, not only that, I have one more user warning. IF you have any ideas, thanks! Add them on my site. Here they are:

and,

and, if needed

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)

Note

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...

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 stumbled on this page by accident, and I wondered why there was a gallery with only four pictures, then I saw the history and this talk page. It doesn't matter to me which pictures you keep on the page, just please keep some. And not in a gallery like that; along side the text is always preferred. Galleries are for Commons. (That reminds me, a "see also" link to the Commons gallery would be great! Make sure you provide good informative captions too.) Sort out your differences out here, but for the article's sake leave in good shape while your discussing. Please guys, keep the readers in mind. Good luck! Rocket000 05:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

That's true. Goodsh oepd3 511 0s 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Current set of pictures looks good to me. JavaTenor 04:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. 71.141.117.207, it looks much better. I think that's the perfect amount of pictures. Good placement too. (You should think about getting a username.) Cheers, Rocket000 04:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I already do, actually. I'm using an IP because I'm supposed to be on wikibreak. --71.141.117.207 04:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

lol. Yeah, Goodshoped pointed that out to me. ;) Rocket000 03:25, 15 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)

No, it's not cluttering the page. If it is, then the table shouldn't exist at all, since it is (to the lay reader) quite pointless, after all. —Kurykh 00:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh. It's because I go around other transit agency's articles (like the MBTA), and some of them have the table either there or on a subpage. -Go od sh op ed 01:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Compared to the MBTA page, this page isn't long at all. Splitting it up isn't necessary. —Kurykh 01:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh, touchè. But you don't want the article to be overly technical, now? -Go od sh op ed 01:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Then the unnecessary technical details need to be thrown out and not simply moved to another overly-technical article, no? —Kurykh 04:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, fine, I'll do it. -Go od sh op ed 04:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD

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)

Can someone tell this user to stop adding unimportant foamer content and schedules to the page? Any help would be greatly appreciated. --Goodsh oped3 511 0s 00:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Just let the person add it. We can weed out unneeded stuff later. No need to get worked up about nothing. --71.141.117.207 01:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Add historic fleet info

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)

I object due to the lack of usefulness of such information. I do not think the lay reader need know about past bus models. —Kurykh 04:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That's true. I think it's railfan content, anyway. -Go od sh op ed 04:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

But, in another way, if people do (and I think they don't) go by Woods, I think they'll be curious (and I don't think so) about those vintage stuff. Anyway, never mind. -Go od sh op ed 04:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodshoped35110s (talk • contribs)

Oh, and one more thing...

...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)

If Muni doesn't use a type of bus anymore, and that bus model is on this article, then chuck it out. And the New Flyers won't be missed by most people. —Kurykh 04:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did chuck it out. They're all over at Pier 70. I hear there's one more over there from a fellow Wikipedian on Flickr... -Go od sh op ed 04:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Pamphlet

Bits of this article read like a pamphlet (especially the "did you know" section). 86.112.0.41 20:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's true. This article needs a complete overhaul. -Go od sh op ed 00:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just integrate the "Did you know?" section into other parts of the article. —Kurykh 01:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Already done by User:Chrishomingtang. -Go od sh op ed 01:20, 2 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)

You know what, I agree. The first part didn't really completely overhaul it. We need a newer layout so that way it is more encyclopedic or we are just going to have to scrap the page, and its refs, and start over from scratch. I'll try finding more sources and tagging it ASAP. -Go od sh op ed 04:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

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)

OK, now that the article has been scrubbed, does anyone have a say in re-nominating this article for Good Article? —B o L 04:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Answered in below thread. —Kurykh 04:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)