Template talk:Muni

4th and King station
4th and King is NOT a Muni station; it's a Caltrain station. Just because the lines are listed in the article doesn't make it a Muni station. The platforms are stops near the station; they're not even part of the station. Furthermore, the Muni lines are listed as "connections," and don't even stop within the station. So no, listing it here as a Muni Metro station does not make much sense. — Kurykh  02:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Who says that the phrase "4th and King" only refers to the Caltrain station? Muni refers to the two station platforms outside the Caltrain station as "4th and King" on maps, so the name applies equally well to those stops as it does to the Caltrain depot.  In fact, if you look at the Caltrain page, nowhere on maps and schedules does it refer the line's northern terminus as "4th and King" -- it's always called "San Francisco."


 * It also seems to be Wikipedia practice to group light rail platforms just outside a mainline rail station building with the main train station as a single station complex. See for instance Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub. --Jfruh (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I never talked about the use of the phrase "4th and King," so that isn't even relevant to the discussion. In any case, when I say "4th and King," I mean the station building formerly known as Caltrain Depot.


 * I'm finding it hard to see 4th and King as a station on par with Embarcadero, Civic Center, or West Portal. They are merely platform stops that happen to be next to a commuter rail station. Transit hub similar to Diridon Station? Yes. Station similar to Embarcadero and the other subway stations? No. Having said that, I don't think Stonestown and SF State belong there either. We can try moving them onto another category in the template, or create a new category altogether, but to group it as part of a Muni Metro station? Absolutely not. — Kurykh  21:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your all wrong, take the Balboa Park station for example, muni stops alongside but not in the BART station but its considered one transit station. Even if technically 4th & King only refers to Caltrain the article does not treat it that way and we should be practical and add this into the template because the template includes all the notable Muni stations. Furthermore $th & King is usually only used by Muni itself and Caltrain says San Francisco or Caltrain Depot. It is one transit hub and the article reads that way. Now if the article were split into separate Muni and Caltrain station articles then so be it. But just because Caltrain has the fancier station here doesn't make it only a caltrain station. It should be in the template since its the terminal of a major muni line.
 * Let me refute your argument sentence by sentence.
 * Balboa Park: The trains don't stop in the station itself; they stop in the train yard right next to it. "Balboa Park" is used for convenience, not because Muni is actually part of the station.
 * "Treat[ing] it that way": No, it does not. Read the article more closely; Muni is listed under "transit connections" for a reason.
 * Naming: Just because Muni uses one name and Caltrain uses another doesn't make you more correct. That only makes the article title wrong; the focus of the station is on Caltrain, not Muni.
 * "Reads it that way": See second point. Just because you say so does not make it so.
 * Separate articles: The article on the Muni stop will never stand by itself. The Caltrain one will, however.
 * The station's focus is on Caltrain, and Muni is peripheral. Take away Muni from the station and it will stand. Take away Caltrain and and Muni connection would be pointless.
 * Terminals: Should you include SF Zoo for the L? Sunnyvale and Bayshore for the T? Ocean Beach for the N? Preposterous.
 * You also completely ignored my argument that 4th and King is not a station on par with Embarcadero and West Portal. The intent for the section was to list underground Muni Metro stations, not aboveground stations. Now if we add a "Other major stations" or something and have 4th and King, Balboa Park, Stonestown, and SF State under that heading, I'm fine with that, but the current arrangement is incorrect.
 * Oh, and will you stop adding the stuff while we are discussing? It's extremely disruptive, and the addition of "(disputed)" is ridiculous. — Kurykh  19:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

As a compromise, I created a "Major Muni Metro stops" listing and added 4th and King, Balboa Park, Stonestown, and SF State to it. I hope this is an acceptable compromise. — Kurykh  20:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

on par with embarcadero and west portal, thats your personal original research there. 4th/King is a major intermodal station you get off the caltrain and you walk straight onto muni your directed to it its 20 feet from the front car of the caltrain to the front door of the muni metro they are side by side its a singular transit hub. just because it says transit connections doesn't mean a thing. the same could be said of embarcadero station that the stations are separate and are only transit-ally connected.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * More fallacies and illogic.
 * "on par with embarcadero and west portal, thats your personal original research there..." For one thing, stop calling yourself names, the sentence after that was textbook original research. And I live in San Francisco; I've walked through all these places too many times for you to even try to condescend to me.
 * "you get off the caltrain and you walk straight onto muni your directed to it its 20 feet from the front car of the caltrain to the front door of the muni metro they are side by side its a singular transit hub..." now you're contradicting yourself. An intermodal station has multiple transit agencies under one roof. And I've already said that they are a transit hub, just not one single station, if you would bother to even read what I have said.
 * "just because it says transit connections doesn't mean a thing..." yes it does; if they were the same, they won't be different categories. "the same could be said of embarcadero station that the stations are separate and are only transit-ally connected..." no, they are under one roof. Same entrance, same roof, same facility, just different levels. Go there and see.
 * You have not yet refuted any single argument of mine with concrete logic, and you're still edit-warring. What part of "stop editing and discuss" do you not understand? You keep on repeating "major intermodal station." Just because you say so doesn't make it so. And the superscript thing makes the entire template unnecessarily cluttered. Granted, I can change the second heading from "stops" to "stations" if that's the preferred option. — Kurykh  21:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The template should simply link to the major muni stations, ridiculously unimportant specifics are to be left out of templates. the muni ridership at this station is just as high as the downtown stations with the ballpark right there. as for those other terminals, they don't have articles and are therefore irrelevant!Myheartinchile (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What does ridership have to do with anything? If there is an article, link to it. If there are differences between the stations, list it. Tell me, how is the difference between "subway" and "aboveground" "ridiculously unimportant"? One is a slab of concrete in the middle of the road, and the other is a dedicated facility. Please, you're grasping at straws now. — Kurykh  21:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What you just did to the template is exactly why they should be different categories. — Kurykh  21:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

i'm tired of this bullshit argument and don't care that strongly i've stated my position and lets let others chime in and reach consensus, i moved on to writing new articles on other stations. and thank you very much for helping out with them is very appreciated. cheers.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)