Talk:Transbay Transit Center

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Year Opening[edit]

"Opening scheduled for 2017" isn't very specific. If someone can get the month, please add it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C101:6BCC:8C54:FEBF:DFA9:A0C6 (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the Center is almost finished, I think we should now be able to get the day or at least the week it opens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C101:6BCC:9C12:2C88:8320:887F (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Transbay Transit Center. 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Can we get any images of the center now that it's complete?2601:245:C101:6BCC:9067:F0A5:2BFE:4A02 (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to post some. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 21:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added a gallery section with a couple of photos I took on opening weekend. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 21:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 August 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transbay Transit Center → Salesforce Transit Center – Salesforce Transit Center is both the official name and the common name. It is labeled that way on physical maps in the neighborhood, wayfinding signs in the center itself, on Google Maps, in news coverage ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]), etc. etc. It would be confusing, especially to tourists, to have this article title be "Transbay Transit Center" in contravention of all of those sources. Furthermore, other public places with naming rights deals, such as AT&T Park, Levi's Stadium, UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital, NRG station, Jefferson Station (SEPTA), etc. all have Wikipedia pages whose title matches the official name. The page for Willis Tower is named as such, despite the public more often calling it the Sears Tower. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 22:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: The agency in charge of constructing it and multiple major local news sources use "Transbay Transit Center", so it's misleading to claim that only "Salesforce" is officially used. Despite the hamfisted naming rights deal (which is why signage etc uses "Salesforce"), the public overwhelmingly says "Transbay". The common name is what we should use; the official name can be noted in the opening sentence (as it already is). Besides, we don't need to do Salesforce's advertising for them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That website is old; it predates the naming rights deal. The new official website is salesforcetransitcenter.com, and most news articles use the name "Salesforce Transit Center"; see above. Antipathy towards our new corporate overlords is hardly a reason to make things more confusing for readers. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 00:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the FORMER terminal (demolished in 2010) was called the Transbay Terminal (not Transit Center). Transbay Transit Center was the official name for what is now officially AND commonly called the Salesforce Transit Center. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 16:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. You can't dismiss sources for merely being slightly older, per pi's comment (I'm not going to rehash it). When sources are not unambiguous about the naming, it's best that you trust the opinion of a local like me. Nobody calls the Bay Bridge by even the full name "San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge", let alone the official name for the western span, even though there was press about naming it as such. By contrast, Levi's Stadium had no such pre-existing convention, as it never had a previous incarnation. AT&T Park has the overwhelming majority of sources calling it that, and it is also common local usage.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And also, WP:OFFICIAL is not a trump card.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am also a local. And your point about the Bay Bridge merely proves my point: the page name on Wikipedia is San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge, the official name. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 03:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Abundance of issues[edit]

  1. Closure - The place has been closed most of the time, it was open for 36 days and has been closed for months. As there is no re-opening time scheduled/defined, it is closed indefinitely.
  2. Intermodal - The building was designed to be intermodal, and to have rail connections in the basement. In reality, it briefly served as a bus terminal - a single mode. The status of it ever being intermodal is uncertain.
  3. "Serving as" - Being closed for over 6 months, it is not serving as a bus terminal at all currently, using the current tense is inappropriate.
  4. Market Street - As a location reference, it is not incorrect. Claims of the street being the "primary" transportation artery of San Francisco is unsupported.
  5. MUNI service begins December, 2017 - I cannot find any reference or source showing this. The project's own site says construction didn't finish until Mid-2018, and Bus operations commenced Summer 2018.
  6. "Regional bus" - Most regional bus services operate within a specific county. (StaRT - Stanislaus Regional Transport, SJRTD - San Joaquin Regional Transit District). Greyhound is nationwide, not regional.
  7. May 10th update - On May 10th it was announced that structural repairs were completed and at least 4 weeks will be needed to train bus drivers. "Repairs expected to be completed by June 1" is outdated.
  8. Other building issues. Aside from structural failure after a month of opening. The building had escalator failure within a day of opening, and premature wear of pedestrian walkways.
  9. Millennium Tower - The Article for the Millennium Tower makes many references to the Salesforce Transit Center. The two buildings are virtually adjacent, under 30 feet apart. It is known that the soil at site of the tower was problematic which led to settling issues. The Transit Center is now having settling issues. It was also hypothesized that the construction of the transit center disturbed the adjacent tower.

aminy23 (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with some of your claims here, and agree with others. In particular:
1: The closure is expected to be limited in time; while no exact date has been declared, it's clear that the closure is both temporary and coming to an end relatively soon. The TPJA continues to use "temporary" in their official documents.
2: I modified the wording slightly.
3: I modified the tense for the time being.
4: Market Street being the "primary commercial and transportation artery" of San Francisco is patently obvious.
5: There are already two citations in the text supporting that fact, which you clearly did not look for, and a Google search would have found you even more. Citations in the lede are not generally required for facts contained in the body.
6: I have changed it to "regional and intercity bus operators".
7: I have updated the lede and body, with citation, to reflect this.
8: Neither of those are significant enough for the lede. The walkway issues are discussed, with text, in the body.
9: The terminal has repeatedly been found not to be at fault for the Millenium problems; again, not worth including in the lede. A cited sentence or two in the body would be fine.
Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to start by thanking you for reading over my comment in detail, as well as your thorough response.

1: I'm not going to nit-pick on this
2-3: With your new edits, I would no longer consider it to be misleading or erroneous
4: While I will agree that Market street is 'a' primary transportation artery, I'm not sure that it is 'the' primary transportation artery when compared to I-80 and US-101.
5: I phrased this poorly - I was using the word 'reference' to refer to claims and not citations - this statement had two cited references. One from Curbed and one from ABC7. I read both cited articles thoroughly. I also did CTRL+F searches for "MUNI", "December", and "2017". I went to a search engine, and looked for articles. In both cited sources, and per my own research, I cannot find any claim that MUNI service began at this center in December 2017, all the claims I see state that it began in August 2018.
6: Mentioning words like "regional" seems redundant, I think something like "service from XXX and other bus operators began..." or "bus service, including XXX, began..."
7-8: Part of what makes Wikipedia great, is the effort to focus on and look at facts, which results less bias than many other sources. There's some slick verbiage by the people in charge of the building. They are basically saying something along the lines of "We totally finished 'Repairing' our building', but the building is closed because we're waiting for the 'government' (MTC made the independent board) to tell us when to open it. And also we're done with repairs, but we still have to 'restore', 'reinstall', and 'pour concrete' this month."
Looking at the facts:
  • "repairing" - fixing that which is broken (the steel beams) - is complete.
  • Construction relating to this repair is not finished yet - this includes:
    • Per the source you cited:
      • "restoration" of lights and MUNI overhead lines
      • "re-installation" of ceiling panels is needed
      • because of the above, "Nighttime street closures will continue throughout May"
    • Per another source, according to "senior construction manager Dennis Turchon":
      • "the original pathway, made of decomposed granite, will be replaced with concrete because of its durability and longevity. The concrete is set to be poured this month".
      • "contractors will be reinstalling lighting panels and other physical materials that were taken apart during the repairs."
Given that some of these issues are mentioned later in the article, I felt it would be redundant to elaborate on these issues in the lede. Rather than mentioning a beam cracking, then a second beam cracking - I felt it'd be more concise to mention something along the lines of:
"the building was closed due to contained structural failures"
and more accurate to say something along the lines of:
"On May 10, 2019 it was announced that structural repairs were completed, but the closure will continue due to the need for staff training, further construction related to building issues, as well as necessary inspections and review."
9: I wasn't suggesting it be incorporated in the lede, though it would be worth mentioning in the article. The issue with the tower was with soil in the region, a ~1500' building 15' away should logically be built on similar soil. Lawsuits, even if dismissed, are often included in Wikipedia articles.

aminy23 (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For public transit purposes, the Market Street Subway unambiguously wins over the freeways. Most Bay Bridge traffic isn't specifically San Francisco-bound anyway (there's a reason why the San Francisco Skyway and not the bridge itself is the bottleneck).--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 November 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED (non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transbay Transit Center → Salesforce Transit Center – WP:COMMONNAME - this article refers to the new transit center, not the one that was closed in 2010. Aasim (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: Nothing has changed since the last RM, in which there was consensus not to move. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh sure, something has changed. If you take a look at this Google Trends graph, you can see that more people search "Salesforce Transit Center" than "Transbay Transit Center". It does not matter what the complex used to be called. For example, 1WTC was at one point called "Freedom Tower" but was then announced as "One World Trade Center". I do not know how much the "nothing has changed" argument holds against WP:TITLE. Aasim (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose per Pi. Open to changing my !vote if new evidence is presented to justify a move. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because I believe "Transbay Transit Center" is still the common name. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transbay_Transit_Center&oldid=1207008714"