![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
And Done - it took me about a week, but this page is now fully renovated, with a fully reformatted and fully referenced table, as of today (August 25, 2013). Enjoy! --
IJBall (
talk)
05:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
You claim the Muni Metro ridership statistics include the F Market Streetcars--why do you make this claim? None of your links backs up this unsupported claim, and no agency--not APTA, not Muni, not the SFMTA--actually tallies daily ridership on the F Market streetcars. There is no good reason to believe the heritage streetcars are included in Muni Metro ridership statistics, and that supposition should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:7B80:125:F053:E10C:DEDC:7493 ( talk) 07:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I am not "basically claiming" anything. Rather, I am challenging your explicit yet unsupported claim that F Market heritage trolley ridership is included in Muni light rail ridership statistics as reported by APTA. That is not obviously true, and in this discussion you admit you don't know for certain. Why, given the absence of any proof for such a claim (including the sources you purport) would you continue to rely on your unfounded assumption and have this Wikipedia entry remain the only source on the Internet claiming APTA's report combines F Market and Muni Metro ridership? Assumptions are not facts. Your explicit claim should be withrawn until we *do* know one way or the other.
I believe I have finally tracked down proof that should end this discussion, once and for all.
In Q2 2013, the APTA ridership figure for Muni Metro was 166,900. [1]
On the Muni website, at the webpage of the accompanying reference, we find the following list and ridership figures: [2]
J Church |
14,767 |
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
Now there is a discrepancy between the APTA figure and the Muni figure of 2,000 passengers, but that could simply be due to a typo somewhere in the ridership figures on this Muni webpage.
Regardless, it is clear that the only way you can get a number close to the APTA figure is if you include the F Market & Wharves ridership numbers in the total Muni ridership figure. Otherwise, without F Market & Wharves, the ridership figure is almost 25,000 passengers short, yielding a figure of only about 145,000, and no APTA ridership figure for "San Francisco Light Rail" (i.e. Muni Metro) has been that low since at least 2010.
Case closed. -- IJBall ( talk) 20:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on List of North American light rail systems by ridership. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on List of North American light rail systems by ridership. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/pdf/annual_ridership_201410.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
C'mon IJBall, you should know that no one needs consensus to bring articles better in line with our guidelines. WP:WORDPRECEDENCE makes it clear we should prefer words—it doesn't matter how long flags have been in this article: their length of tenure doesn't give that formatting choice special weight over words in this extremely local case; it just means no one has come along and said, "Hey, why are we using country flags in a list of transit systems?" Also, you're actually mistaken: the article has not used flags "since the beginning": it's actually only used them since this edit five years after the article was created.
So really, given WP:WORDPRECEDENCE it seems clear that the party/ies arguing for the inclusion of the flags should be the ones needing to gain consensus since the default should be words and flags shouldn't have been introduced to start with. On top of that, definitely the abbreviation "USA" has to go as per MOS:US. As for "saving space", I will admit I've only eyeballed it and not gotten out my pixel ruler but the version with words is not looking like it's taking up more space to me.
As the guideline says, "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams.
" Transit systems? Not really widely understood as representing a country.
WP:FLAGCRUFT specifically says "... placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things
". So I'm not seeing any good argument here for why we are adding emphasis to the country in which a system is based. —
Joeyconnick (
talk)
20:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.I'd argue that is exactly the case here. In addition, the use of flags and abbreviations here was not a "trivial" choice – it was done to save room in the table, which why use of things like flag icons are often used in tables. Your way makes the table look like crap because of the "line wrapping" required to fit "United States" in – but a flag icon + either "USA" or "US" saves room in that column... Also, this practice is widely done at related articles – see: List of metro systems, List of tram and light rail transit systems, List of North American rapid transit systems by ridership, etc. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 20:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@ IJBall: Guadalajara's light rail was extended 1 km north to a new station named "Auditorio". It was opened last Friday (Nov, 23) as this local newspaper reports (sorry it's only in Spanish). You're right, the official website hasn´t updated their facts yet, however, you can check this project was on course in this one page and this other page, both in the official website of SITEUR (operator of the light rail). You can also track the opening in UrbanRail.
Greetings from Mexico,
-- Aninonimo ( talk) 02:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
With regards to the update maintenance tag I placed, I was planning on updating this table a while back with the 2020 APTA report (Q4 2019), but was unable to find similar corresponding figures for Guadalajara. Leventio ( talk) 00:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
APTA's Q4 2022 figures are apparently out now, if anyone wants to update this article. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
As a tourist one yearns for information about the ownership and financial status of the cable car lines. It appears that a corporation owns the tourist line. Is it profitable? Are any other parts of the Medellin Metro fully or partly owned by private entities? 2800:484:1D7C:4B00:848D:D0:DAD9:5AC8 ( talk) 07:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
And Done - it took me about a week, but this page is now fully renovated, with a fully reformatted and fully referenced table, as of today (August 25, 2013). Enjoy! --
IJBall (
talk)
05:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
You claim the Muni Metro ridership statistics include the F Market Streetcars--why do you make this claim? None of your links backs up this unsupported claim, and no agency--not APTA, not Muni, not the SFMTA--actually tallies daily ridership on the F Market streetcars. There is no good reason to believe the heritage streetcars are included in Muni Metro ridership statistics, and that supposition should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:7B80:125:F053:E10C:DEDC:7493 ( talk) 07:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I am not "basically claiming" anything. Rather, I am challenging your explicit yet unsupported claim that F Market heritage trolley ridership is included in Muni light rail ridership statistics as reported by APTA. That is not obviously true, and in this discussion you admit you don't know for certain. Why, given the absence of any proof for such a claim (including the sources you purport) would you continue to rely on your unfounded assumption and have this Wikipedia entry remain the only source on the Internet claiming APTA's report combines F Market and Muni Metro ridership? Assumptions are not facts. Your explicit claim should be withrawn until we *do* know one way or the other.
I believe I have finally tracked down proof that should end this discussion, once and for all.
In Q2 2013, the APTA ridership figure for Muni Metro was 166,900. [1]
On the Muni website, at the webpage of the accompanying reference, we find the following list and ridership figures: [2]
J Church |
14,767 |
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
Now there is a discrepancy between the APTA figure and the Muni figure of 2,000 passengers, but that could simply be due to a typo somewhere in the ridership figures on this Muni webpage.
Regardless, it is clear that the only way you can get a number close to the APTA figure is if you include the F Market & Wharves ridership numbers in the total Muni ridership figure. Otherwise, without F Market & Wharves, the ridership figure is almost 25,000 passengers short, yielding a figure of only about 145,000, and no APTA ridership figure for "San Francisco Light Rail" (i.e. Muni Metro) has been that low since at least 2010.
Case closed. -- IJBall ( talk) 20:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on List of North American light rail systems by ridership. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on List of North American light rail systems by ridership. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/pdf/annual_ridership_201410.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
C'mon IJBall, you should know that no one needs consensus to bring articles better in line with our guidelines. WP:WORDPRECEDENCE makes it clear we should prefer words—it doesn't matter how long flags have been in this article: their length of tenure doesn't give that formatting choice special weight over words in this extremely local case; it just means no one has come along and said, "Hey, why are we using country flags in a list of transit systems?" Also, you're actually mistaken: the article has not used flags "since the beginning": it's actually only used them since this edit five years after the article was created.
So really, given WP:WORDPRECEDENCE it seems clear that the party/ies arguing for the inclusion of the flags should be the ones needing to gain consensus since the default should be words and flags shouldn't have been introduced to start with. On top of that, definitely the abbreviation "USA" has to go as per MOS:US. As for "saving space", I will admit I've only eyeballed it and not gotten out my pixel ruler but the version with words is not looking like it's taking up more space to me.
As the guideline says, "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams.
" Transit systems? Not really widely understood as representing a country.
WP:FLAGCRUFT specifically says "... placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things
". So I'm not seeing any good argument here for why we are adding emphasis to the country in which a system is based. —
Joeyconnick (
talk)
20:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.I'd argue that is exactly the case here. In addition, the use of flags and abbreviations here was not a "trivial" choice – it was done to save room in the table, which why use of things like flag icons are often used in tables. Your way makes the table look like crap because of the "line wrapping" required to fit "United States" in – but a flag icon + either "USA" or "US" saves room in that column... Also, this practice is widely done at related articles – see: List of metro systems, List of tram and light rail transit systems, List of North American rapid transit systems by ridership, etc. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 20:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@ IJBall: Guadalajara's light rail was extended 1 km north to a new station named "Auditorio". It was opened last Friday (Nov, 23) as this local newspaper reports (sorry it's only in Spanish). You're right, the official website hasn´t updated their facts yet, however, you can check this project was on course in this one page and this other page, both in the official website of SITEUR (operator of the light rail). You can also track the opening in UrbanRail.
Greetings from Mexico,
-- Aninonimo ( talk) 02:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
With regards to the update maintenance tag I placed, I was planning on updating this table a while back with the 2020 APTA report (Q4 2019), but was unable to find similar corresponding figures for Guadalajara. Leventio ( talk) 00:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
APTA's Q4 2022 figures are apparently out now, if anyone wants to update this article. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
As a tourist one yearns for information about the ownership and financial status of the cable car lines. It appears that a corporation owns the tourist line. Is it profitable? Are any other parts of the Medellin Metro fully or partly owned by private entities? 2800:484:1D7C:4B00:848D:D0:DAD9:5AC8 ( talk) 07:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)