Talk:Waymo

Archives (Index)

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Recent funding round

Hello! On behalf of Waymo and as part of my work at Beutler Ink (which I've disclosed at the top of this page), I'd like to submit a request to add mention of the most recent funding round, per many sources: The Wall Street Journal, The Verge, Reuters, Forbes, Automotive News, CNN, TechCrunch, etc.

I'm open to editors' preferred wording and citation(s), but here's specific text for consideration:

• Waymo raised $2.5 billion in a second funding round in June 2021.

References

Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Added. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Spelling correction

On behalf of Waymo, I'm submitting a request to change "Weymo" to "Waymo" in the sentence, "In March 2022, Weymo said that they will begin offering rides in San Francisco without a driver." I don't edit articles directly because of my conflict of interest, so I'm hoping User:Yasuo Miyakawa or another editor can correct the typo on my behalf. Thanks in advance! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Closing as Already done @Yasuo Miyakawa: Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Waymo One Trusted Tester program

Hello again! On behalf of Waymo and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I'd like to submit a request to add mention of the Waymo One Trusted Tester program, per The Arizona Republic and Phoenix Business Journal. I'm open to editors' preferred wording and citation(s), but here's specific text for consideration:

• In May 2022, after testing with employees, Waymo launched its Waymo One Trusted Tester program for residents in Downtown Phoenix. The research-focused initiative asks participants to share feedback during their rides, and is similar to the program launched in San Francisco in August 2021.

References

@InfiniteNexus and Yasuo Miyakawa: Pinging you two as previous reviewers. Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Your text itself seems to be good with good cite course. No problem. Other thing caught my eye; inconsistency of date format throughout this article...Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Added. I've fixed the date formatting issue as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing and updating the article. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding a backlash section

Waymo testing has caused backlash and tension with San Francisco and some other cities. I am not sure how to exactly format it in, or where it would belong, so I included it in the road testing section. homo momo (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Waymo One update

Hello again! On behalf of Waymo and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I'd like to submit a request to update the text about Waymo One to note an additional expansion in the Phoenix metropolitan area in 2023, per The Arizona Republic, KTAR-FM, and City Sun Times, among other sources.

Currently, Waymo#Waymo says: "In May 2022, Waymo launched its Waymo One Trusted Tester program for residents in Phoenix, Arizona. In May 2022, Waymo announced that it would expand the program to more areas of Phoenix." This is accurate, but outdated.

Sources for existing text

References

I'm open to editors' preferred wording and citation(s), but here's specific text for consideration:

• In 2023, coverage of the Waymo One area was increased by 45 square miles, expanding the world's largest contiguous autonomous vehicle service area to include downtown Mesa, uptown Phoenix, and South Mountain Village.

References

@InfiniteNexus and Yasuo Miyakawa: Pinging you two as previous reviewers, if you're willing to take a look and update the article on my behalf. Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done but text omitted: Thank you for the update and your contributions to Wikipedia. I've removed a small selection of text so as to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERT. Let me know if the changes are satisfactory.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 18:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Urropean Thanks for updating the article! I will mark this request as answered. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Need a WP:RS to support claim about Miami

The current source is a hotel blog which has serious WP:RS issues because it amounts to a WP:SPS. The hotel blog claims that Waymo service with safety drivers is already available in Miami as of 2025. I did a quick check of Google and Google News and I don't see any standard news media sources making that claim. I also don't see any reports on Reddit or other social media sites from people reporting on what it was like to ride in a Waymo vehicle with a safety driver in Miami, which one would expect if Waymo had already begun revenue service in that city. Can anyone find a better source? Otherwise, that claim needs to go. Coolcaesar (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It’s real.https://waymo.com/blog/2024/12/next-stop-miami#:~:text=In%20early%202025%2C%20we'll,via%20the%20Waymo%20One%20app. В²C ☎ 06:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not right. The Waymo blog post from December 2024 is careful to make clear that they are not in revenue service right now, but it's coming in 2026, by saying "we'll work to open our doors to riders in 2026."

The hotel blog currently linked in the article is actually saying that you can book a Waymo ride right now with a safety driver in Miami, as right now in 2025. But I have not seen any reliable source saying that. In contrast, when Waymo has launched revenue service with or without a safety driver, they have consistently posted announcements to their blog making that clear that one can book a ride immediately. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Generations

The article currently describes Zeekr as "6th gen", but doesn't mention Hyundai, which has already started testing in the Bay Area. I'm not sure if these are using the same hardware though.

More generally, we should add a table of all their known vehicles and which ones are currently operating. Asamboi (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

"2025 power outage" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2025 power outage has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 31 § 2025 power outage until a consensus is reached. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

"2025 San Francisco power outage" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2025 San Francisco power outage has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 31 § 2025 San Francisco power outage until a consensus is reached. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Undue weight?

Hi, again! On behalf of Waymo, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I am hoping to have a discussion about the Incidents and controversies section, which has grown significantly in recent months. I am particularly interested in gaining a better understanding of the inclusion criteria for text in the Accidents subsection, which currently has claims that are only related to the company because a Waymo vehicle is involved. For example, "On July 6, 2024, a cyclist was hospitalized after hitting a Waymo" is based on this local news source, which says "a cyclist may have made intentional contact with a Waymo robotaxi during an alleged crash". The article is essentially about a cyclist pretending to be hit by a vehicle. There is also "On February 6, 2025, three Waymo passengers were hospitalized after a hit and run by a human driver", which is based on a local news source about a driver who slammed into the back of a Waymo, injuring passengers. Neither of these accidents received widespread coverage (plus, the coverage they have received is WP:ROUTINE), nor are they Waymo incidents in any meaningful sense. In the same vein, if someone were to crash a bike into, say, a Toyota, would that accident be included on the Toyota page?

Per WP:UNDUE and WP:VNOT, which says "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included", I'm curious if editors would consider removing select claims that are tangentially related to the company, or are otherwise routine. Otherwise, text about any accident involving a Waymo vehicle is being given the same weight as text about the company's operations as a whole. Should this content follow a more standardized approach similar to how other industries handle incident reporting? For example, WikiProject Aviation houses Aircraft accidents and incidents, which is an essay (not policy) that offers guidance about when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles about airports, airlines, and aircrafts. I am curious, are any editors aware of similar guidance for automobile accidents? I did come across WikiProject Highways/Automobile accidents and incidents; while this is specific to updating articles about roads and highways, perhaps it could apply to companies as well. If more relevant guidance pages exist, I'd appreciate any helpful links.

I'm also wondering if there might be a way to summarize the incidents, rather than list them out individually. What does a reader learn from a list of minor incidents that they would not get from a summary? I understand that Waymo is a novel technology, and with that comes public scrutiny of incidents. Mentioning and summarizing these issues makes sense, but in its current form, it is bloated, and the article would benefit from clear direction from the community about how to handle incidents. I'm starting a general discussion, before submitting edit requests with rewritten text or to flag select claims. Thanks for any and all helpful feedback! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Numberguy6:, sources can verify that something happened. That verification maybe reliable. However, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, I question the due weight of having an exhaustive list of every accident simply because governmental regulations say all autonomous vehicle incidents are to be logged. So, it's not being doubted that it happened, but I question the value of including incidents like a motorcycle crashed into the back of a car that happens to be a Waymo, then another car ran over the motorcyclist. Perhaps this should be split into "list of Waymo accidents". The decision to include is based on collective editorial consensus. Please engage in discussion and achieve consensus for inclusion of what you'd like to include. This is at risk of becoming a coatrack article. Graywalls (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Graywalls: How about requiring two secondary sources per accident to establish notability? Most of the "irrelevant" ones only have one source. Numberguy6 (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

that's a start, though i'm not sure that prove dueness for the other incidents with two sourcing, we can remove the "irrelevant" ones and see what it looks like from there User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:06, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know who inserted the hidden comment in article "two examples are required for notability" but such admission criteria is not based on policy and there's no consensus for this and I object to barking order using hidden comment. Please leave this out unless community consensus determines that this should be implemented. A Waymo hitting some bland parked car is going to produce less coverage than a car that happened to be in the same exact place that happened to be a Ferrari Daytona SP3 owned by a celebrity car enthusiast as it would get coverage by car oriented publications as well as celebrity gossip publications like TMZ. This kind of thing shouldn't influence the inclusion or non inclusion. Graywalls (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know whether there is any precedent for this, by my preference would be to only include accidents where the Waymo car is at fault, (or likely potentially at fault), like:

On May 21, 2024, a Waymo hit a utility pole

On December 8, 2025, two Waymos collided ---Avatar317^(talk) 02:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Avatar317 and Numberguy6:, I believe applying the general concept behind WP:IMGCONTENT and WP:IG maybe a good idea in this case, even though we're not talking photos. The idea here is that for an article like sunflower, having a few pictures is essential to show what it looks like. Having a few helps to visualize more so than just one, but when a whole bunch of them gets added, it becomes information pollution more so than helpful. My preference would be to focus on things that that put autonomous-driving AI, especially something specific to Waymo developed software judgment into question; or incidents that draws attention to how the company Waymo handled the matter. Also, we could consider shifting some of the contents out into List of Waymo accidents as a compromise, per WP:NLIST. There's no universally accepted consensus saying "two sources and it's in" but I've seen this being used in articles like List of one-hit wonders in the United States. "Two sources and in" would bloat the article unduly. Particularly when a notable person or a notable vehicle model is involved. Such as intoxicated A-list popstar in a Lamborghini hit a stopped Volvo Waymo. Are we gonna cover this in the popstar, Volvo, Waymo, impaired driving and Lamborghini and anything you can think of? Graywalls (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I really like/support your idea of - focus on things that that put autonomous-driving AI, especially something specific to Waymo developed software judgment into question; or incidents that draws attention to how the company Waymo handled the matter. - because that is why Waymo is notable; cars are not their product, and unlike Volvo which aims to sell cars in which you are safe (even from rogue drivers) Waymo has never used this as a selling point for their service.

But I don't think this should be limited by the Image Gallery policies; (hopefully not) but if Waymo keeps having accidents that fit the above category, we should continue to report on this as a timeline. One would hope that these diminish in frequency/severity over time. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

agree we need to keep this broad strokes. we cannot do coatrack. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Along with the discussion above, I want to emphasize that it's imperative that we collectively work to not be swayed by corporate communications and public relations professionals working at the behest of corporations to shift editorial decisions on matters that rest within community editorial consensus. Those are things whose factual accuracy is not disputed, but are neither prohibited by policy nor customarily expected to be covered in articles. Things that are customarily expected include the basic facts, like when a company was established, who the founders are, and such.

Things that fall in neither required nor prohibited as long as factual claim is properly cited and confirmed to reliable sources

Unflattering - "A motorcycle crashed into the back of a Waymo and was injured" or "company's driver was cited for speeding and was found guilty"

Flattering - " something was listed in x-th place in top 100 profitable business owned by non-binary identifying people under age 40 and it is first such business in this township" "The Local Newspaper's reviewer said it was one of the best rides he's experienced"

In my experience, corporate PR requestors often try to seek inclusion of the flattering minutiae while seeking to suppress unflattering ones and I'm saying volunteer editors should make their own decision and discuss among themselves rather and decide on encyclopedic merits rather than being influenced by corporate PR requestors and these are things that remain in the gray area, meaning that it's up to community consensus.

Graywalls (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Completely agree. I thought that was one of the wonderful things about Wikipedia; that what you are requesting is (to my knowledge) the status quo for Wikipedia. (or maybe I just haven't seen enough articles on corporations? I don't edit too many of them compared to the other subjects I'm interested in.) ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:55, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Seen a few folks who have declared COIs attempting to do obvious edit requests in favor of their corporations. An editor or two who i suspect have COIs especially with regards to AFC or editting their own bios.

wikipedia ranks high on search metrics and even if it doesnt it ranks high on whats retrieved by AI summaries User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree @Graywalls, thank you.

So, @Inkian Jason, I have to say, as a COI editor, please take care when starting a mini-policy discussion on an article. You are taking volunteer time away from other projects to consider something that, in some cases, may only benefit your client. That may actually be the case in this instance. If you have specific, well-sourced suggestions about things to remove, I think my preference and wikipedia policy lean toward you just make the edit requests, rather than giving us a 490-word comment and starting a mini-policy procedure. That said, maybe other editors have different preferences.

As for your suggestion "I'm also wondering if there might be a way to summarize the incidents, rather than list them out individually," I think that is comment is really not ok. An editor with your experience, and especially seeing the history of this company and of policymaking in this area, should know that suggestion would hurt the encyclopedia and public understanding, to the benefit of your client. Replacing all of these incidents would be a sharp deviation from the WP:RS and obscure the way these incidents have shaped policy and the company. For example, there was an incident of Waymo interfering with fire department operations, which led to the discovery of more incidents, which led to a policy debate and, according to Waymo, product improvements. Then this year, the same thing happened with passing school buses as children left the bus. Statistics would hide this detail. Also, creating statistics is fraught, because it could dip into original research or could rely on Waymo's own stats. Why is the latter a problem? Waymo has been unusually assertive in trying to keep bad stats out of the public eye. One example is Waymo's recent claim that the number of Waymo's stalled on S.F. streets during a blackout is a trade secret.[1]

I do not think we need a mini-policy at this point. We can handle it case-by-case. Early reports of these incidents may have limited coverage, but an editor may use judgment that they are notable. The first reports of a Waymo passing a school bus falls into this pattern. I think it just had one source for a while. Similarly, early reports often don’t reveal who is at fault. Later information may develop that makes them more relevant.

If we want to look at specific bullets to remove, let's just focus on what would make the article better. Chris vLS (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

test drives and possible future plans

I boldly removed overly detailed test drives and plans about potential future expansions per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:VNOT. I feel these do not belong, just like exhaustive list of accidents do not belong. Please comment if you'd like to say something. Graywalls (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Numberguy6:, Even though you restore challenged contents, I rarely see you engage much in discussion pages. Please see WP:SPS as it relates to Waymo blog. A sweeping re-addition of the challenged contents, which I find inappropriate per WP:UNDUE and WP:VNOT and WP:NOTAWEBHOST to chronicle future plans. I argue that if you have to rely on the Waymo blog for details, then maybe it's not even worthy of inclusion. As said in WP:SPS Be careful when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will likely have published it in independent, reliable sources Graywalls (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Graywalls: Is your point that we should remove the entire future-expansion part, or just the Waymo blog citations (and leave the secondary sources that I just added)? The way I interpreted it was: you removed a bunch of stuff on notability grounds (because it only cited the Waymo blog), and then I re-added that stuff with secondary sources demonstrating that each individual expansion announcement is notable. Numberguy6 (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

The entire potential announcement. See WP:NOTNEWS. This is not something that belongs in the encyclopedia. WP:CRYSTAL is relevant too Graywalls (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Given how quickly Waymo is now expanding within the US, updates on individual lobbying by Waymo there seem to be unnecessary for inclusion. Waymo may eventually be lobbying throughout the entire US, talking to regulators and politicians in dozens of cities and their respective states. The overview of how much money Waymo has spent on lobbying is a pertinent piece of information, but reports of discussions from every city and state seems excessive. The exception is when there are public statements of support or disapproval by public officials, or related regulatory updates. Discussions between Waymo public officials in other countries where Waymo does not yet provide service are worth including, as they provide extra information beyond the expected lobbying throughout the US.

The Service areas tables are very informative and worth keeping expanded by default, especially given the multistage process of the Waymo service being tested and rolled out in a new city. Once Waymo has announced that it is testing or will be providing service in a city/airport, it is helpful to have immediately visible information on what stage the city is at within that process, and the table does an excellent job providing such an overview.

When the Waymo service is first opened to the public for rides in a new metropolitan area, that expansion is worth mentioning in the article, along with the update to the table. Beyond the Area served column in the table, I see little use for including the specifics of the exact neighborhoods and towns in the operating area as it expands over time, especially for potential expansions. It doesn't seem worth getting into the details about the periodic expansion of either the Waymo operating areas or the governmentally-controlled permit areas within a metropolitan area, now that Waymo is regularly expanding its service throughout multiple states.

The main area in the article that may be excessively detailed for full inclusion here is the large Incidents and controversies section. Presumably there will be more incidents included over time, and it may be appropriate to split it into its own article before it is larger than the rest of this article. Merxistan (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Text correction re: service area

Hi, again! I'd like to submit a text correction related to service areas. Currently, the bottom of the History section says:

• Also in November 2025, the operating area in Northern California was expanded to include Santa Rosa and Sacramento. The Southern California operating areas was expanded to stretch from the Mexican border to Ventura County. This new permit area was approved by the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

References

The CBS News article used as an inline citation confirms that Waymo received a permit to operate in this larger area, but the service area has not been expanded yet. This is confirmed by the source, which says, "The robotaxi company has not announced a rollout plan or timeline for when the new permitted areas could expect the driverless cars." Could editors correct this text for clarification purposes? User:Ysangkok, I think you've added the text in good faith, but I want to put this request on your radar and I'm hoping you'll agree a minor rewording might help make this text more accurate. I'm happy to address any questions or concerns here or on my user Talk page. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok I have changed the text, please have a look. --Ysangkok (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Ysangkok: Thanks for reviewing this request and updating the article. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Potential expansion

@Avatar317: To avoid WP:CRYSTAL, I have agreed to remove the info I added about lobbying, with the following criteria for inclusion applying:

• Official announcement by Waymo
• Evidence of Waymo testing cars, applying for operating permits (mere lobbying/advocacy doesn't count)
• Reliable third-party source with an entire article (not just a blurb) on potential Waymo expansion

But I'm on the fence about Oregon, since Waymo has actually testified before a legislative committee; it's a step up from lobbying, but it doesn't fulfill any of the criteria above. Numberguy6 (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Numberguy6:, have you also read WP:VNOT. Things like planned 7-Eleven location opening, store hour changes, Waymo service area expansion, etc are not necessarily due. Who determined that we should include it? Graywalls (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Reuters and TechCrunch don't devote entire articles to 7-Eleven stores opening, but they do for Waymo expansion. Numberguy6 (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Point still stands. Simply being reliably verifiable doesn't guarantee inclusion, especially blow-by-blow. Please establish consensus for inclusion, and until then, I kindly ask that you remove what you added back.This is per WP:ONUS Graywalls (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

You're the only user who opposes it. @DocFreeman24: (Special:Diff/1235728565), @LievelsP: (Special:Diff/1263667794), @Commenter8: (Special:Diff/1287249585), @Danlev: (Special:Diff/1303071815), and @Merxistan: (Special:Diff/1311930062) all added content related to future expansion, and it went unopposed. What do you guys think? Numberguy6 (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

This is absolutely not how it works. That's like saying when one person comes by and cleans up all the littered cigarette butts, then the primary opponent says that dozens of people have come by and added to the pile over time, therefore the person seeking to clean up is the "only one who opposed it " to justify restoring the removed items. Your idea of inclusion justification seems to be simply piling up sources. You've removed the table collapse someone else implemented and you re-added service expansion speculations single handedly post dispute. Graywalls (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I will confess, I'm having trouble understanding the contours of the debate here. It sounds like you two are really just debating the level of detail worthy of inclusion. I don't agree at all with Graywalls that this is akin to a planned 7-Eleven opening or hours changing. Waymo's rollout across various cities/states/countries has attracted massive media attention, making it totally different than a routine business change. Numberguy's criteria for inclusion seems sensible to me. DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to point you 2027 in rail transport, where we have a blow-by-blow of every single new line and extension of an existing line scheduled to open in 2027. Many of them don't even have a specific date, and it's inevitable that many will be delayed beyond 2027, but each statement has a reliable secondary source. I believe this sets a precedent for including future Waymo expansion. Numberguy6 (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

It's also a low view count article with 1,289 a month while Waymo gets about 50 times more view at 56,767 meaning that it naturally gets more scrutiny. It's not uncommon for even egregious spam article created for public relations purpose full of primary source links and highly promotional writing to not be noticed for years. Those are often swiftly deleted when it is noticed and sent to AfD.

So, an RfC maybe needed to gain broader attention, however since you're the one wishing to include, that's on you. Graywalls (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Blow by blow details

In order to justify the tag, I will leave the expected explanation here This is not a report or an analysis on Waymo, it's an encyclopedia. Blow-by-blow future announcements, location-by-location, details on expansion progress is overly detailed. It should summarize, without engaging in original research or WP:SYNTHESIS. Graywalls (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Lobbying activity

Potential sources

• https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/politics/waymo-doubled-lobbying-in-san-francisco-as-it-eyes-airport/article_391d45bc-d9af-11ef-9622-cf08dc3d2e70.html Graywalls (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

potential source

I'm taking notes of sources as I come across so the article can be expanded around what sources say rather than corporate approach of finding sources around their narrative.

• power outage situation https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/daniel-lurie-waymo-blackouts-pge-21282099.php
• ethics complaints by union leaders https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/waymo-ethics-complaint-teamsters-sfo-20149956.php Graywalls (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Neighborhood nuisance concerns

@Numberguy6:, You edited out the key point that Waymo ignored the order given by the city and replaced it with Waymo sued them. Waymo suing the city does not change the fact city issued an order, Waymo ignored it, then Waymo sued about it. Why was the fact about Waymo ignoring the order removed? Since you did so without leaving any edit summary or starting a talk page section, I had to go hunt down in the edit history where it happened. Graywalls (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Avatar317:, I don't agree with your immigration analogy. This is more of a corporate decision making behavior where they decide between just dump something in the ocean vs disposing it properly and coming to the decision by cost of violation vs cost of compliance; or ignoring stop work order on construction with plans of just paying the fines later based on analysis that loss of production is costlier. I sub-sectioned it as such, so that it's a separate subsection for such behaviors rather than just this one. There's a difference between rulemaking conflict vs compliance order conflict and I believe the latter deserves a separate sub-section. Graywalls (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Their site was properly permitted and allowed by the city, but NIMBYs who oppose their use of it (AFTER it started operations) complained and the city made a new policy to make them stop using the lot. The residents would have had the same complaints if a restaurant were there (noise and light). This case is closer to local residents that abused CEQA to classify students admitted to CalBerkeley and the housing they needed as "pollution".[2] ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

If reliable sources frame it such in their own voice, we can certainly say that. Graywalls (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

You could also think of this as a contract dispute: Waymo got city permission for a recharging lot, and is now being denied that usage. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Chrisvls and Bluethricecreamman:, do you have any input on matters regarding the section heading on Waymo's charging station nuisance concerns?

@Avatar317:, you removed the subsection arguing that it doesn't deserve one in Special:Diff/1335618664 where the allegation is where Waymo is the wrongdoer, however when Waymo is the one making intellectual property allegations, you retained section subheading. Do you have a pro-Waymo bias? I ask this as you made comments lika biased and loaded language above like the complainants are being NIMBY. Why are these disputes just "another legal and political dispute" but Waymo initiated intellectual property claims are not just another "legal" issue? Graywalls (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what you are referring to here: "when Waymo is the one making intellectual property allegations, you retained section subheading." (The Intellectual property claims were adjudicated by a court and Levandowski was imprisoned for his actions.) so those weren't just allegations.

But I could equally accuse you of having an anti-Waymo bias by creating a subsection named "Defiant behaviors by Waymo:" - How is that NOT POV? If you read the LAT source, essentially they were allowed to start operating, neighbors complained; the negotiations between city & Waymo went nowhere, so city made new rules claiming they had the authority to shut down Waymo's operations (sound similar to Trump here?), Waymo claims they don't have that authority and sued, the city counter sued on the same issue, so the court will resolve the issue that the two parties could not on their own.

As far as my bias, did you notice any of my other edits, like the one where I added the number of injury accidents reported to NHTSA? I think you should look at your own potential bias. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

It is mainly due to your characterizations of community concerns as "NIMBY" when it was not said as such by reliable sources. Graywalls (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

You are right about that. Now how about you answer my question: You created created a subsection named "Defiant behaviors by Waymo:" - How is that NOT POV? ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I changed it to a different heading after that for a more NPOV. If one moves into an apartment, they have a lease to use as a home. That doesn't mean they can't be evicted for using it to do jumping jacks at 3AM for an hour every day and ignoring the notice of violation following complaints from people below. The tenant doing so may claim they're just doing activities associated with enjoyment of a living space. The landlord might say it's unreasonable use. In the Waymo case, the city received numerous complaints and after negotiations failed, they city issued an order. Waymo didn't like it and ignored it. Since the city ordered them to stop certain activities, but Waymo flouted an order from an authority having jurisidiction, so this is defiance. However, I can see how that can be seen as none neutral, so as a compromise, I changed it "Ordinance and compliance order conflicts" which is a reasonable neutral description of the matter. You removed it again anyways. The change was: here. However, you removed the sub-heading while not removing the heading for allegations initiated by Waymo. It's not up to Wikipedia editors to adjudicate reasonableness. That's for reliable sources to do. Graywalls (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Except Waymo already has lots of charging stations in lots of other cities, without this issue. My view is that your calling it "defiance" shows your bias.

But anyhow, I think the article is better withOUT the sub-heading I removed and withOUT the sub-heading you removed, so at least we've been improving the article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Lack of any controversy in the lede

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

per MOS:LEDE, yet there is currently not a single controversy in lede despite there being plenty of them. Which are the most prominent ones? Which one should we decide on featuring in lede? Graywalls (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize the article, so a brief summary of ALL controversies is appropriate, featuring one cherry-picked controversy would not be. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Lack of ANY controversy is not okay. Graywalls (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Did you read my reply? I didn't say we shouldn't have criticism or controversy. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Nowhere did I suggest an editor should cherry pick and feature one specific example. Graywalls (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

You should read your own statements: "Which one should we decide on featuring in lede?"

But we have lots of controversies/criticisms/events which means we probably should have about one paragraph in the lead which would try to summarize those several sections. ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

NTSB is now investigating Waymo for its numerous school bus passing incidents. I would say that's a collection of incidents, as opposed to one specific incident. So, I think including this would be reasonable, because it's not about one incident, but rather a series of poor decision making by Waymo's software that repeats itself. Graywalls (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Request for comment: future expansion

Should we include cities where Waymo has announced future expansion, but hasn't actually started service yet?

Arguments in favor of inclusion:

• Reuters, TechCrunch, CNBC devote entire articles to announcements of future expansion
• Precedent from articles like 2027 in rail transport

Argument against inclusion: (@Graywalls: feel free to add more here)

• WP:VNOT
• WP:TOOMUCH
• WP:CRYSTAL

Numberguy6 (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Not !voting yet, but I collapsed the tables because I thought they were too big WITH all the future expansion plans. WithOUT the future expansion in the tables, I'm ok with them expanded. Right now I'm thinking we could have current service expanded by default, and future service collapsed by default (separate table beneath current service table), and that would fix my opinion of the (tables overwhelming the article) issue. ---Avatar317^(talk) 02:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support - SEPARATE future expansion table, sourced to secondary sources to show importance (recognition in Mainstream media), BELOW current services tables, COLLAPSED by default. (because it is so big.)

---Avatar317^(talk) 05:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of future plans. Graywalls (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Order in which sections are placed

Generally speaking, in company articles, I believe history section is right below lede in many cases. I have re-ordered the rest in alphabetical ordered. Avatar317 (talk · contribs · count) disagreed and ridiculed me with "?!?!?" without offering generally accepted ordering method.Aside from history, do we have MOS, or convention as to how things should be ordered?

"Reverted reorganization into "alphabetical order" - Since when do we order articles like that? An article with a section named with an A should precede the "History" section ?!?!?"

Graywalls (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@Avatar317:, given your ridiculing, I ask that you provide policy or well established consensus strongly siding with your idea and how the way I am doing it is completely wrong. Graywalls (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

YOU are the one who tried to CHANGE the article structure; no other editors here complained about the order as a problem.

Can you provide any policy showing that alphabetical order is standard? Or even the norm used in articles, if not policy? Or even any examples (that clearly are INTENTIONALLY in alpha order?) (And I shouldn't have to say this, but we aren't talking about LIST articles here.) ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)