Talk:Walt Disney World Monorail System/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 TREYWiki 2 Lets get this straight 3 Resolution attempt for edit war 4 Item by item 5 Realise 6 no piggybacking create your own topic 7 Riding tips 8 Why? 9 SEE 10 Its over 11 Self-published source removed 12 This article has gone to hell 13 DELTA 14 Talk page rules 15 COLOR 16 GOLD not SILVER 17 24.98.83.176 18 Monorail Lime 19 Incidents Section 20 Monorail Fire

[edit] TREYWiki

Your edits make no sense. information is lost in translation, and hard to follow. your images don't match up with topics, and you add pointless information, and remove useful information. HeadMouse 03:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

Just wanted to make sure you seen that template up top that reads "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains," That has been there a while. Back when this article was cleaned up. SO you see, there is no need for you to come in an "clean up" HeadMouse 03:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

[edit] Lets get this straight

I want to set this straight. I DO NOT CLAIM TO OWN THIS ARTICLE I DO however come in and make sure it remains clean up and within Wikipedia guidelines. This article has already been approved by wikipedia and Trains Wiki Project.

This article has been written and flows easily for readers to understand and gather information. When new information is added. it is placed in the correct part of the article. If incorrect information is added, it is removed. I have no problem with people adding information, moving things around and what not. but to totally mess things up so they make no sense at all, and to add pointless information and remove useful information. that's not needed. All the information in this article is up to date. This article is written in accordance with WP guidelines and editing tools.

There is no need for a "clean up". this article received a B-class because it still lacks certain information. NOT because of the style it was written. HeadMouse 03:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

Just because an article has been graded by a Wikiproject doesn't mean there isn't always room for improvement. Wikipedia is not a static project, and none of the pages within it should be static items. Every day there'll be new users coming along with new things to add, or better ideas how to format something. So we shouldn't be reverting those changes simply on the basis that "a wikiproject graded this version". The article will continue to change and improve, and eventually the WP might re-grade it, but really what the WP grades it is irrelevent to the overall idea that we're here to make wikipedia better, not just to maintain wikipedia's status quo. --Maelwys 17:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Now re read what I wrote. I have no problem with adding new information to bring the grade up (which is why this article got a B). But as I said, Trey is totally changing the article, making it harder for members to follow along and adding irrelevant information and removing useful information. Read the responses in my talk page. I am not the only member that thinks Trey is doing wrong. Read the history of the article you will see. HeadMouse 17:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

Regardless of an article's status with one or more WikiProjects, all articles must conform to Wikipedia's guidelines and official policies. Judging by his edit summaries, TREYWiki feels the article does not meet either WP:MOS or WP:NOT. Your insistence on reverting all edits made to the article back to your preferred version appears to be a clear violation of WP:OWN. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution attempt for edit war

I'd like to attempt a resolution to the ongoing edit war here, because people simply reverting each other forever doesn't really help anything. I've requested a full protection on the page until the issue is resolved, to enforce a cease-fire and hopefully allow people to discuss things properly. I think part of the problem is with the sheer number of differences between the two major versions being reverted... it's at the point that any editor trying to "revert" the article ends up also removing good information that was added between reverts, so there is some information being lost no matter which way you go. So it seems that instead of simply reverting the information to one version or the other, we should be trying to build some form of composite version that takes the best of each and puts them together. For example, in the last revert done by Headmouse, he removed a bunch of perfectly good wikilinks that an anon had added earlier today. I'm sure that he doesn't object to those links at all, they just got caught in the crossfire, so to speak. So can we at least agree to slowly dissect the changes, instead of just mass-reverting constantly? --Maelwys 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Again I will say this and I will put it on bold so maybe it will actually get read this time. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH NEW INFORMATION BEING ADDED. But the "new" article that Trey is posting has bad flow, images in the wrong places, and useless information while removing useful information. If Trey wants to go in and add stuff, add wiki links, thats cool, but to rewrite an article thats already been approved and given a B grade to a lower grade is not a good idea. HeadMouse 17:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

That's the problem though, everytime you revert this page you're removing new information that had been added to it. That's why we have to discuss this, item by item if necessary, instead of just reverting things back and forth. --Maelwys 17:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to say this: putting text and a image next to each other with a ton of empty space in between sentences looked bad. --blm07 17:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to say that how to emergency evacuate and riding tips are not allowed in wikipedia.--trey 17:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And I want to say putting an image as a thumb and it being placed where ever out of context looks worse. HeadMouse 17:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

It doesn't have to be out of context. This is how it could look:

The older system

the new LMCU system

The older system, served from 1989 with the introduction of Mark VI Blue till June 2007 when the final train, Blue, was converted to the new LMCU system. As of June 2007, all the trains now have the new LMCU (touch screen) control system.

The text is just an example, and sure, the pictures will overlap into the next section, but maybe there should be more information about the controls that can fill the space. That is how images are normally placed on wikipedia. --blm07 17:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Item by item

Okay, lets start with the item by item, if we really must. Version 1 vs Version 2

Infobox changes:

• Version 1 shows image at 300px, Version 2 shows it at 150px
• Version 2 adds the System Length value
• Version 2 defines the operator and locale to be WDW, instead of WDW Resort or WDW Parks and Resorts
• Version 2 adds adds the Max Speed value
• Version 2 adds the Operation value

So which version of the infobox is better, Version 1 or Version 2? What changes should we make to one of them to make it better encapsulate both, so we have a single version of the infobox that everybody can agree on?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maelwys (talk • contribs) 17:39, 14 June 2007

Wikipedia is not a democracy. This is up to an admin, also, protection is not needed, it is one user causing all the trouble.--trey 17:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. But when some of the issue is a question of "what looks better?" or "what reads easier?" (which seem to be HeadMouse's points) then there's not always definitive guidelines to follow and it doesn't hurt to hold a Straw-poll. And in general I prefer to actually build consensus and resolve disputes through talking, rather than just outright blocking people. Although if he's not careful, he is about to be blocked for [3RR]. --Maelwys 17:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He's reverted 8 times in 24 hours. He's already been blocked. WP:NOT is a "definite guideline" saying what should be in wikipedia. Emergency evacuations is not something that should be in this encyclopedia. WP:MoS is the "what looks better" policy. Please read that before you make your points.--trey 17:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm familiar with those guidelines. I'd already reverted the page to your version once before realizing that HM wasn't going to just give up on this. So I decided to try logic with him, and I was just trying to present things from a neutral point of view so that he could see exactly what the changes were and realize that they're not as bad as he seems to believe they are. --Maelwys 18:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) While I understand and appreciate TREYWiki`s WP:NOT concerns, I do not have any objections to a cleaned-up version of the previous Safety section [1] being included in the article. Full disclosure: I am an adherent of M:Inclusionism. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it would definitely take some clean up, but most of that section might become salvagable. My main concern is the notability of the evacuation section, and how applicable it is to this article. Two problems I see: 1/This seems more like information that somebody about to get on the train wants to know, not what somebody looking up the train in an encyclopedia wants to know. 2/ Are the evacuation procedures that unique to WDW? I would've assumed that all monorail trains of this type would have the same procedures in place, and this would fit a lot better in the article for Mark VI monorail, instead of in the article that's specific to the WDW Monorail. What makes this information notable specifically to Disney? --Maelwys 17:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are unique to WDW, MOST monorails now have a saftey platform that runs along side the beam for evac. HeadMouse 04:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think at least part of the evacuation (roof evac) should be kept as I think this is unique to this style of monorail. But the mention that the roof evacuation plans were used in 1985 are false... it was in the station. [2]. As for the rest of the article, I think the version currently in use is the better choice.--Napnet 16:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, your incorrect. I have the news paper articles that shows the monorail (gold) on the beam. it even mentions the fire occured on the beam between EPCOT and TTC. The roof evac DID take place. the news paper article mentions that too. I will be glad to scann and post this article if need be. BUt you can go to Mark IV monorail and read about it and see refrence to The Orlando Sentinel News Paper. HeadMouse 15:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Napnet, as HeadMouse said the evac to the roof did take place [3], it seems the link you gave was relating to a different fire 10 years later. --15:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we appear to be confusing the 1985 and 1996 fires. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my bad, I totally overlooked the dates. --Napnet 17:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Realise

What you all fail to realise is that not only am I a Disney guru. I have spent most of my life in and around WDW. I know just about all there is to know EXPECIALY about the monorail system. So to see an article get severly messed up like this really ticks me off. and even worse, to see information removed and or replaced with incorrect information. Thatis why I am fighting so hard for these articles. If Wikipedia wants a good reputation, then they need to listen to the people that know what they're talkign about. You can get all bent out of shape over what templet is used or what wiki code is used. but the fact still remains that the information in the article looks like crap. it jumps around, and is very un organised, it uses incorrect terminology in alot of places (For example "moving blocklight system (MBS)". Not one single Cast Member uses the term MBS or moving blocklight system. It's called MAPO. The article even uses the term MAPO later but does not explain what it means. The original article explained what MAPO means and how it's used.) This article is in need of a MAJOR clean up. But every time someoen tried to clean it up. and add new information, they are said to be vandelising the article and are blocked. This article comes off of protection tomorrow. If trey and the others will get off their high horse and let the article be cleaned up, they may find that it meets the needs of someone doing research. Unlikly thought since they only want it their way and have no desire to listen to reason. We'll see how it ends up in weeks to come. HeadMouse 15:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Realizing things, unfortunately there's still a few things that you need to realize as well.

1st/ Wikipedia runs based on Verifiability, not Truth. That means that it doesn't really matter how many times you've ridden the monorail compared to me. Reference newspaper articles about the monorail, reference information published by disney, but don't just write about what you "know is true".

2nd/ Not every bit of information that you know will necessarily belong in an article. Stuff like "Ask the pilot to sit up front" or "They also made a toy!" isn't notable enough to belong in the article in their own sections.

3rd/ The Manual of Style dictates the best ways to present certain information. Please don't start enlarging the images and making galleries out of them again. The important things here are the text, not the pictures.

4th/ (and this goes for everybody) Please don't let tomorrow turn into a giant race for who can push their version of the article first. We're all trying to collaborate here, to work towards the same goal of a good, and readable article. Yes, some information still needs to be added to the article (if rooftop evacuation is unique to WDW trains then it can go there, and there should definitely be some information on the several fires they've experienced, with newspaper citations) but don't rush to push everything in at once, or we'll just get more revert wars and a re-locked article. Lets take our time, don't blindly hit revert to anything just because somebody else did it besides you, explain what you're doing and why, and accept constructive criticism about what other people looks good.

Just my thoughts. --Maelwys 15:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

HeadMouse, your the one that screwed it up in the first place. I didnt add anything. You wrote the whole article. I just removed un-encyclopedic (evacuations, toys) sections from the article, and made it conform to the manual of style. I will never edit that page again, feel free to fuck it up. --trey 16:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Trey your the one that fucked it up. You may not have added anything but you removed A LOT of useful information. So I am glad you will never touch it again, now it can be cleaned up and readable. Maelwys, Thats nice an encyclopedia thats not based on truth. Great reference source. So no matter how much knowledge a person has and how much credibility their information can add to an article, it' not based on that, it's based on what YOU (or wikipedia) THINKS belongs in an article no mater how true or untrue it is. I was not referring to how many times i have ridden the monorail. heck anyone can go ride all day long. I have been places most people has not and know things most do not know. As I said in other talk pages, the Rider tips are part of the WDW monorail experience. It's information that readers look for. As for the toy. I did not originally write that topic I just added an image to it, but I think it needs to be part of this article. Of course I expect you to disagree. HeadMouse 20:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats nice an encyclopedia thats not based on truth. Great reference source. So no matter how much knowledge a person has and how much credibility their information can add to an article, it' not based on that, it's based on what YOU (or wikipedia) THINKS belongs in an article no mater how true or untrue it is. We have a winner! The Wikipedia policy forbidding original research is that way. It's one of the most important policies on all of Wikipedia. If you can't prove that something is true with reliable external sources, it doesn't belong in articles. How is anyone supposed to know that you didn't just make it up if they can't look it up themselves? ➪HiDrNick! 21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats why I have referenced The Orlando Sentinel news paper. HeadMouse 22:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

HeadMouse, you said "So no matter how much knowledge a person has and how much credibility their information can add to an article, it' not based on that." This is absolutely correct. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core policies, and it states:

“

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

”

A good way to look at the distinction between verifiability and truth is with the following example. Suppose you are writing a Wikipedia entry on a famous physicist's Theory X, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals and is therefore an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. However, in the course of writing the article, you contact the physicist and he tells you: "Actually, I now believe Theory X to be completely false." Even though you have this from the author himself, you cannot include the fact that he said it in your Wikipedia entry.

Why not? Because it is not verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Wikipedia readership or other editors. The readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you for confirmation. And even if they could, why should they believe you?

For the information to be acceptable to Wikipedia you would have to persuade a reputable news organization to publish your story first, which would then go through a process similar to peer review. It would be checked by a reporter, an editor, perhaps by a fact-checker, and if the story were problematic, it might be checked further by the lawyers and the editor-in-chief. These checks and balances exist to ensure that accurate and fair stories appear in the newspaper.

It is this fact-checking process that Wikipedia is not in a position to provide, which is why the no original research and verifiability policies are so important. If the newspaper published the story, you could then include the information in your Wikipedia entry, citing the newspaper article as your source.

Hopefully this helps explain why Wikipedia's "verifiability, not truth" is so important. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. it's explains it perfectly. No mater how much TRUTH is behind the FACTS, Wikipedia does not care. They just want the article to LOOK good and do not care if important information is removed or altered. Lining to some web site that was created by someone that we don't know and don't know if what they say is true or not is ok. (example Monorail Society links) But Posting facts that most people know to be true is not. HeadMouse 00:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What is truth? If something cannot be verified with a reliable, published source then it is just hearsay. Were it not for Wikipedia's no original research policy, then anyone could claim they were an expert on a topic and make any claims they wanted in an article. If personal experience were permitted on Wikipedia, then editor JohnDoe could claim he was an expert on Disney monorails and change this article to say that cast members working during a monorail accident are executed by WDW for gross negligence. We would have no way of knowing the difference between the false things written by people who were not experts vs. the true things written by people like you who know what they are talking about. The "verifiability, not truth" policy is the only way to protect articles from these sorts of issues.

As a self-described expert on both Disney and monorails, you probably have a stack of reference books that talk about the Walt Disney World Monorail System, which you can then cite to add information to the article. So while experts cannot use their own, personal expertise to expand an article, because they are experts on the topic, they will most likely have ready access to published, reliable sources that non-experts would not have. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone keeps stacks of books lying around. SO no I do not have books to reference. I DO have experience and knowledge which I am trying to share, but you and trey seem to want to stop that as much as possible. Maybe I should write a book, then I can reference it. HeadMouse 01:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has three core content policies. They are Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. If you refuse to read (let alone follow) these official policies, you make a lot of work for the rule-abiding editors who run into your work down the line. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] no piggybacking create your own topic

The version HeadMouse put up right now is very bad.--trey 01:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny. ITS YOUR ARTICLE trey NOTHING changed, just added information. HeadMouse 01:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Lots of trivial information (toys, riding tips, evac.)--trey 01:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

How is EVAC trivial???? Wouldn't you want to know how to evac one if you were stuck??? HeadMouse 01:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Riding tips

I have removed the "riding tips" section from the article. This clearly violates WP:NOT as it is basically function as a how-to guide and a travel agent all rolled into one. Metros 02:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you know? I was just reverted. Metros 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In the section Wp:not#Also.2C_Wikipedia_articles_are_not_... please see numbers 2 and 4. 2 states that we are not a travel guide. 4 says we are not a how-to guide stating that "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s." This is exactly what the "riding tips" section is. Metros 02:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Why do you feel the need to be punks and constantly mess with my edits? You don't give time for me to add references, you claim it has unreliable information, yet when trey posted the EXACT SAME information, it was ok. whatever it is you have against me, you need to get over it. I WILL continue to edit this article and keep it clean, I WILL continue to keep the useful information in this article despite if you think it's "trivial" or not. it IS information that is about the WDW monorail and it DOES belong in this article. HeadMouse 02:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to follow Wikipedia's official policy on civility and refrain from making personal attacks. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SEE

You 2 have me so damn busy trying to revert to stupid crap your doing to the article, I have no time to FIX the things needing fixed. Why don't you give a person 24 hrs before you get all power happy. HeadMouse 02:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not just arbitrarily delete all of the maintenance tags in this article. They are there to show you the sections that do not meet Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines. Instead you should replace them individually as you add the required references to each section. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There's that broken record again. HeadMouse 02:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

He removed all the references I added (5 or 6). --trey 02:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There would be no need for me or anyone else to be a broken record were you to read and follow Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the citations that HeadMouse had bizarrely removed. There were nine of them total. Why someone would remove in-line citations is beyond me (well, other than the obvious WP:OWN issue). The article is now up to thirteen citations; nice work, Trey! --Kralizec! (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Its over

Do you want to restore the protected version? or keep this one? Comments (other than those from HeadMouse) would be helpful. --trey 03:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have liberally sprinkled the article with various {{maintenance}} tags as needed. IMHO, we should keep the current version and just work on cleaning it up as appropriate. Re-adding your references (the ones so bizarrely deleted by HeadMouse) would be a good start, especially since an article of this size would have fifty or more citations to be properly referenced. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Urgh. These tags look like WP:POINT-pushing. Nobody's going to want to wade through all of those.

The protected version at least had a proper lead, which I've restore bits of. I personally reckon we could do worse than roll back to it. One assumes that if HeadMouse returns he'll probably end up getting blocked again shortly given his attitude, so it may be worth just pretending all the last week's edit wars just didn't happen. Chris Cunningham 09:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but I honestly think HeadMouse is truly trying to improve the article, just in his own, unique way ( ... that unfortunately appears to include totally ignoring all Wikipedia guidelines and official policies). While he may not appreciate our observation of WP:AGF, I feel that as a show of respect for the changes he is trying to make, we should keep his edits rather than just roll the article back. The reason I went to the unusual step of tagging individual sections for {{maintenance}} is because a couple of us have been trying to help him understand exactly where his edits are not up to Wikipedia's standards, as well as exactly what needs to be done to bring them up to standards. --Kralizec! (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that assessment. The problem with this subject is that a good deal of it is proprietary information. It is a transit system in every sense of the word, but unlike most all other systems it was privately constructed and is privately operated. There almost certainly is a published work on this subject, but said work is owned by and written by Disney itself. Similarly, said work would be very difficult to obtain and review.

Let's make an assumption that HeadMouse is connected to Disney (as a cast member, say). Further, assume that HM has access to this published work, but is unable to cite it due to corporate policy. (I interviewed a cast member for a school project once, and I wasn't able to properly cite the interview in my report because the cast member could not give her last name.) What is to prevent a similarly-connected individual from correcting any factual errors in the article?

The article, as put forth, is well-written. Yes, it needs more citations, but a single maintenance tag can solve that problem better than sprinkling them everywhere and destroying its readability. Further, with a little tweaking the more contentious points of the article can be incorporated; for instance, how many transit systems do you know of that have inspired an entire line of toys? That is pretty notable, in my opinion.

If Wikipedia is getting serious in its content, more power to it. That said, there are plenty of other places to start. For example, it can blow away all of the episode synopses from the various fan-fave TV series (Simpsons, Star Trek, CSI, etc.) and simply keep the primary articles. This information is hardly encyclopedic, relies on original research (i.e., watching the episode) and/or cites fictional sources. A single article on The Simpsons and its influence on culture (and how culture influences it) would be encyclopedic, however.

McDoobAU93 12:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I do think most of the facts from HM's version need to be included, some of it may just be excessive. --Napnet 17:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia's rules on original research have a point, but at the same time I think it would be next to impossible to craft a set of rules that could deal with every single article on it. Many things are factual based purely on observation, not because someone else wrote a treatise about it. For that matter, why cite newspaper articles since those stories (a) depend on what the journalist saw and (b) may not have a neutral point of view.

A similar discussion came up regarding Disneyland's new Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage, where a user gave a step-by-step walkthrough of the attraction, which I personally considered a spoiler. Technically, since the attraction is real, a description of the attraction doesn't merit a spoiler, per Wikipedia's guidelines. However, as the attraction is a medium for telling a story, IMO a spoiler warning would have been warranted.

I think the consensus here is that the article is good, but needs better verification, which may be tough to come by (but not impossible). Time to do some research, I guess. :)

McDoobAU93 20:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

While I understand your perspective, you may wish to review some of Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines. The verifiability policy clearly states that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article" and "if an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The guideline on reliable sources states that they "are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." This would include most reputable (aka non-tabloid) newspapers by definition.

With the addition of a couple of score of citations, I feel this article could easily be a good article or better. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-published source removed

The sole source given [4] by HeadMouse (talk · contribs) for the Other Safety Equipment section is the monorail-man1979.tripod.com web page. As HeadMouse has previously stated [5] that this is his own personal web site, I have removed this reference from the article as per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper). --Kralizec! (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well since there are only 2 sites that give this information, and the other site has been deemed un reliable, then I was left with my site. HeadMouse 15:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If the Other Safety Equipment section cannot be substantiated in any way other than via a self-published source, then it does not belong in Wikipedia. As per WP:VER ("the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."), I have removed this section. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article has gone to hell

I am tired of the crap from all of you. I am done trying to keep this article readable and clean. You all can screw this article up all you want. I am tired of (personal attack removed) not waiting till someoen is finished, just assuming that I have converted the entire article back to the original. they didn't bother to look and see that it's the same article, just cleaned up some with new information added. It's also bull shit that rider tips, a major part of the WDW monorail system, is removed, but the toy remained, BOTH are part of the WDW monorail experiance. But who cares about the content of the articles, as long as it looks good and meets some retarted code of style. Who cares that refrences that went no where were removed. lets block the guy for trying to give good refs to non borken links. Also odd that thre is a ref to a site that refs back to this article. Now we can't have a ref to a legit site with legit information just because it's a site by the editor, but we CAN have a ref to a site that send you in circles back to this article. But as I said, this article has gone to hell. It is no longer a good resorce for information. I will wait and maybe in enough time trey, Kralizec!, Maelwys , and the rest will stop trying to own this article and will let other editors fix it up. Untill then this article will remain crap. Again I say, I feel sorry for anyone doing research trying to find info on the WDW monorail system and finding this article. So go have fun trashing this article. I'll kep an eye on it and maybe come back later. HeadMouse 15:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh... funny, here I thought you'd come back and be pleasently surprised at how much of your information we've managed to keep in the article. All we've done is add some references to it, and some extra sections of information (like the train specs) and rename a couple areas to make them more encyclopedic and thus more keepable. Yes, even your "Rider Tips" section is still there, and almost completely intact. It was just renamed "Customer Service" so that it's more inline with giving information about the train (the subject of the article) instead of information to train riders (not the subject of the article). As far as I can tell, very little of your info has even been removed at this point, we're just trying to make it all follow Wiki guidelines, that's all. And if you'd get off your high-horse and stop assuming that we were all out to get you, you might even realize that. --Maelwys 15:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah becasue the topic title makes alot of sense being called customer service. since first of all there are not "customers" at WDW they are guest, so if anything it should be called Guest Relations, but then you would be interfering witht he "guest relations" int he Walt Disney World article. and since it is infact a rider tip then that title makes the most sense. If you all would get off your high horse you woudl realise that. HeadMouse 15:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DELTA

The greek leter DELTA has nothing to do with this use of the word. HeadMouse 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page rules

Hi everyone, just a reminder to remain civil in your posts to talk pages and in your edit summaries. Personal attacks and other inappropriate content may be removed. Thanks. Exploding Boy 17:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COLOR

1. people that are color blind have special equipment to help them see colors on computers.
2. the small amount of color used in the article would not hurt anything.

But none of that matters, Any and all edits made by me have to be undone to make a few people feel bigger and better. HeadMouse 04:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

— wikipedia has polices, like WP:MOSCOLOR. You are not helping the encyclopedia, so you cant ignore them. --trey 05:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny how when you first posed that link, it didn't exist. HeadMouse 05:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

All TREYWiki did was create a shortcut to a specific section in Wikipedia:Manual of Style that has existed for years. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GOLD not SILVER

If you go to your beloved www.monorailyellow.com click on "monorails" you will see pics of monorail SILVEr and the page talks about it being parked NEXT TO the new Mark VI trains, this was AFTER the fire. You will also notice that there is no Mark IV monorail GOLD around. It does however mis read saying that monorail silver caught fire, this (along with other faulse information liek this) is why this site was removed as a source from this article long ago. HeadMouse 05:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down and remain civil. I know deep down inside you want to help. Check out the welcome page.--trey 05:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am calm and civil. your the one being a PITAHeadMouse 05:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks are serious crimes.--trey 05:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have made no personal attacks. HeadMouse 06:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Does this really have to be such a big argument? If we don't have a Reliable Source on either gold or silver, let's just change it to say "An example of this was seen in 1985 when one of the trains caught fire..." --Maelwys 12:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please allow me to reiterate what Maelwys said. In the absence of a published, reliable source on which train caught fire, we should follow WP:VER and just remove the disputed fact. While I have no doubt that you guys only want to create the best possible article, your continual mass revert of each other's edits is only serving to disrupt the project. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, please note that calling someone a pain in the ass (PITA) is indeed a personal attack. --Yamla 14:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Kralizec!, after telling headmouse to calm down and be civil, I was called a pain in the ass. Also, please stop with your pre-RfA garbage.--trey 16:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's twice I've seen you attack Kralizec's arguments to follow the rules on personal grounds. You might want to stop burning your bridges here by assuming bad faith on behalf of people who are basically on your side. Chris Cunningham 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 24.98.83.176

Some of us HAVE the articles. And some of us was actually there when the fire happened. It was Monorail GOLD, not SILVER. HeadMouse 16:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there's so much contention over this particular fact, maybe we should just leave it out together? After all, it's interesting that a monorail train caught fire, but it's not particularly relevant which one. We can talk about the fire, without mentioning whcih particular train was involved. What do you all think? ➪HiDrNick! 20:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Already did that earlier this afternoon. ;-) --Maelwys 21:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monorail Lime

The prose and graphic representation of the color for Monorail Lime is incorrect. The train's stripe is slightly-green yellow with a blue delta. It does not have a white delta (only Monorail Coral has a white delta). See here: [6]. I'd fix it myself, but I haven't figured out how to edit images on Wikipedia yet. Roothog 01:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The image is only to show what a "delta" is. The image you linked to is a VERY old image. The blue delta on monorail lime was removed along time ago when the train was re-pained. it is now white as you can see here in this video. [7] HeadMouse 23:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know it had been repainted since I saw it last. Thanks for the link to the video. Roothog 01:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I think the white looks better on it IMO. That blue just made it look weird. HeadMouse 02:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incidents Section

At the risk of inciting another battle on this page, I added an incidents section to the article. I meant for this to be similar to incident sections on other transit pages, particularly those for airlines or airports. I'm not someone who minds if you edit or delete my text, but I would be particularly happy if Wikipedia would reimburse the $20 I spent getting access to the full articles on the Orlando Sentinel website. :)

This also got the fire sentence out of a paragraph that I found problematic. The sentence's previous location implied that guests were walking the beam during the train fire. Whether or not that actually happened, it was not mentioned in any of the Orlando Sentinel articles. The Sentinel articles only indicated that guests had climbed onto the roof of the train. Roothog 03:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. see I have the newspaper articles. I scanned them and posted them. and they were removed because WP did not like the rational given. I even used WP's template for rational and they still did not like it so I gave up. BTW during THAT incident, the guest did NOT walk the beam, they moved to the next car and were rescued from there. HeadMouse 23:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monorail Fire

When I am wrong I admit it. and here I stand corrected. I just got off the phone with WDW monorail shop with a Cast Member named Danny. He has been working there for 25 years. I asked him if he remembered the fire and he said yes. I asked him what color monorail it was he said Silver. So I apologize to those that I argued with. HeadMouse 17:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)