Talk:Metcard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is requested that a photograph or photographs of experimental credit card ticket machines at some city tram stops be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. Wikipedians in Melbourne may be able to help!

Portal	Metcard is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Objectivity?

nothing wrong with melbtrip website

The article seems to be somewhat skewed and unobjective. The following statements in particular:

• They replaced a functionally identical yet technically simpler system of punch tickets and scratchies. (yet, in theory, the Metcard system is far simpler to use - the scratchie system required the user to scratch off the date and time of use - a sort of "manual validation")
• the machines used to purchase or validate the tickets are notoriously quick to break down. (whilst break-downs and problems occur, their "notoriety" is lileky less common than is implied by the text)
• Subsequent validations are therefore technically unnecessary unless you plan to exit a gated rail station. (whilst technically so, it should be noted that re-validation is still legally required)
• Ticket inspectors randomly check trains and trams, but their sometimes heavy-handed tactics have resulted in public discontent and even court cases, (firstly, for accuracy the correct term of "Authorised Officers" should be used, rather than "Ticket inspectors"; secondly, this statement seems to promote the unfortunate stereotype of all TIs/AOs being the "bully type" [whilst some have been rude and over-the-top in certain circumstances popularised by the media, this is generally not the case])
• Melbourne's chronic level of fare evasion (implies that fare evasion is an epidemic of sorts in Melbourne, moreso than general cities worldwide; in many cities where fines are simply the cost of the trip or entirely unenforced, fare evasion is rampant - moreso than in Melbourne, one would assume)

Also, I've corrected the following factual error: despite existing validators already supporting smartcards as well as magnetic cards. -- the current equipment supports an RFID-based system, which is far less capable and for an entirely different purpose that the future smartcard system. The current system does not support smartcards.

Naturally, I'd like to know what anyone reading thinks.

Cheers --Evan C 11:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed, I think there are definate POV issues, and also the verifiability of some of the material. --takagawa-kun 02:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Very muchly so, I think this article could do with a rewrite....Some of this stuff is bullsh*t!

--AndrewH 09:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC +11)

• It read like a PTUA flyer I've updated some parts, using 'actuals' from the TTA website and not hypotheticals / rhetoric / 'bring back conductors' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.34.63.1 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Much better! There're still a few bits I'm unsure of, but on the whole it's much better! --Evan C (Talk) 05:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me know what else you'd like changed, happy to help..

[edit] POV

I've added a POV tag to the article. It seems that not much has been done since the last discussion on this, but I'd suggest a rewrite for the How Metcard Works section. Like most other articles about Melbourne's transport, it reads like a whinge from disgruntled customers: while many of the statements are correct, it's written in a tone that elicits a certain reaction. Argh, stupid "loss of session data" errors!invincible 10:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zone2/3 changes

I had read that the anomaly of zone 3 only existing in the outer east/SE, not all outer suburbs of similar distance, was one of the reasons for the change, as it was causing electoral discomfort for the local members in the zone 3 areas. However, I shall try and find the article to provide a reference. Natronomonas 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Frustratingly, I couldn't find the reference, so in the meantime I have removed the "anomaly" statement. Natronomonas 07:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)