Talk:Bayhill Shuttle

Notability

This shuttle line does not constitute a transit system. Acnetj (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This route and others like this ought to be consolidated into something more meaningful such as this: List of small Southern California transit agencies Acnetj (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? Well should we delete Rio Vista Delta Breeze since it only has two lines it must not be a system then huh?LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Rio Vista Delta Breeze is a system, according to Metropolitan Transportation Commission and 511.org. Go check these sources and you won't find Bayhill Shuttle as a system. Wikipedia shouldn't decide that some shuttle is a transit system contrary to the regional authority.Acnetj (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

MTC is not a regional authority on anyone, in the US most are self operated and funded by a special district like a school district or a senatorial district or county boundary. The MTC is a separate regional coordinator and does not work with all the agencies nor does it have any authority whatsoever over any of them. MTC coordinates regional planning and connectivity as an arbiter between two consenting agencies which may or may not follow its recomendations. LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

MTC is the metropolitan planning organization in the Bay Area, so it is the most authoritative source as to which is considered a transit system and which isn't in the Bay Area. In the Bay Area, even California, transit systems are provided either by the city, county, or transit districts. Shuttle programs are not transit systems since they exist in areas that have transit, meant to supplement existing transit, use funding that is not typical of transit agencies (may be one time and discretionary), and don't provide ADA paratransit service that transit systems have to as required by the federal law. Just because they provide passenger transportation doesn't mean that they're transit systems. Schools have them (are you thinking that yellow school buses are the same as AC Transit?), airports have them, private companies have them, but they're not transit systems.Acnetj (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No it's not, any sources available and common sense, precedent, and consensus are; it's how we avoid bias. So Marin Transit operated within the Golden Gate Transit area, AC Transit operates in the Muni area, SamTrans and Golden Gate do too, Union City Transit operated within the AC Transit area as does Bear Transit and the Dumbarton Express and in fact the latter is actually fully operated by AC Transit with Bear Transit partially operated by AC, so as you see due to the Bay Area's extremely balkanized transit systems we have a lot of overlap. Small bus systems operated alone or among other systems and as there is overlap is it false to deduce that they are therefore not systems because logic would dictate that the San Francisco Municipal Railway for example is not a transit system on the 14 lines in Daly City or when it's buses enter Marin County or more directly put, Union City Transit isn't a system at all, but it sure is not a shuttle service, it operates fixed routes with regular coaches. Paratransit is handled within transit districts only and smaller operators such as Union City Transit and EmeryGoRound must contribute financially to them, nevertheless if they didn't it would not make them non-transit systems just non-paratransit contributors. AC Transit is the yellow school buses in the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District and many private bus companies such as MV Transportation that do run school buses and other charter services do have articles here as well. California Shuttle Bus, Amtrak Thruway Bus, and Greyhound are all notable transit systems just not public ones, they still remain transit systems. Oh and I apologize ahead of time because this is going to be a huge blow to your argument. Airport shuttles are transit systems too and they are notable such as the Wiki Wiki Shuttle at Honolulu International Airport, that is where this project actually gets its name so give it a rest please.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I won't give it a rest because you're wrong. I am not going to spend time arguing with you what should be consider a transit system or not. But it is very obvious that the "Bayhill Shuttle" does not constitute a system. No one recognizes it except some of you here. Show me an example where the shuttle line is considered a transit system other than Wikipedia. And now you're saying it is a system because YOU say so. Don't bring other examples because I know in many ways they are a system, but they don't apply to the so call "Bayhill Shuttle" system.Acnetj (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

How am I wrong? Because I have refuted each argument that you have made with consensus? Wikipedia includes transit systems, public and private, airport, local, major, and minor. These are significant components of infrastructure such as ferry or rail terminals, stations, and lines. How is it obvious? Transit systems do not have to be "recognized" they simply must exist. The Bayhill Shuttle is not SamTrans or Muni and it is not a Taxi company either. It is clearly an independent operation based on the available sources and branding. We also follow the consensus that LINKS, EmeryGoRound, WikiWiki et al have been found to be notable. Whether you think airport shuttles, private coach operators, or other minor bus systems are not notable is simply your personal opinion - wikipedia runs on consensus and consensus is that this is a bus system and that it is notable. You brought the examples to light in fact and I will bring them forth as that is how this project works.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not requesting to delete every transportation related page. I am also not asking that shuttle programs not be recognized in some form. What I am contesting is to confuse the shuttle program with real transit systems like SamTrans and AC Transit, and somehow make the Bay Area have 30 more "transit systems" than what it already has. I know that some of you treat it as your pet project, but it ought to have a higher standard to stick to what Wikipedia should be and have better quality. I am in favor of fewer, higher quality, meaningful pages, rather than more of the low quality pages like this.Acnetj (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well we have an equality based worldview here that if X bus company in Y city has an article they all should as we are not made of paper and can therefore be comprehensive. Shuttle programs have been shown to be automatically notable and over time all articles have improved. Deleting is the opposite of turning the article into good quality as if we had done so with the original AC Transit article we would have made quite a mistake. The Bay Area has the most balkanized transit system distribution pattern of anyplace in the world - the navigation template lists all 30+ transit topics without necessarily labeling each one a transit system. We use the term transit system literally not idiomatically to mean "[major] transit system" rather the sum of parts a "system" (transportation related entity) of "transit" (that moves people around and is a unique operation) of that makes sense. Wikipedia does not have a strict standard for public transit, high schools, congressmen, train stations (including halts or closed down or historical stations or even just streetcar bus stops) nobel prize winners, miss universe winners, governors, cities, airports among other automatically notable topics. What you are in favor of is irreverent as this wikipedia is not a democracyLuciferWildCat (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Your standard certainly won't apply if I decide to wiki some local businesses or some local people huh? A local Starbucks is probably more patronized than a local shuttle, but certainly isn't notable enough to have its own page. The reason that I object this, not only just for its notability, is that it is not an accurate portrayal, and there's no room to really expand the topic unless it is made into a generalized page for the local region. The shuttle programs are more like Public Light Bus, Jeepney or Dollar van, which represent a mode of transportation that is not planned and operated by a single entity (and that individual operations are not notable to be portrayed as transit system), versus AC Transit, which itself is a agency that plans and operates bus service.Acnetj (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not my standard, this is the consensus here, there are some topics that are automatically notable and public transit operations are automatically notable. Since Starbucks is not a bus system it is not automatically notable. The company itself is and none of it's franchises or branches are. You may want to look up the terms "precedent" and "consensus". There is always room to expand and improve articles and I am sure this article will be greatly improved over time although it may be slower since Bayhill, LINKS, and EmeryGoRound simply are smaller and less known, BART Greyhound and American Airlines are giants in comparison and have more readily available editors and sources.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)