Talk:Walt Disney World Monorail System/Archive 1

Discussion forums

If you are interested in further discussion about monorails, bullet trains, and other mass transit methods/ideas, etc. - you may want to sign up for free at one of the following web groups:

• Yahoo Group: Bullet Trains

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.17.132.206 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 26 July 2005

• Yahoo Group: Friends of the Monorail
• Yahoo Group: Monorail Society

—Preceding unsigned comment added by HeadMouse (talk • contribs) 08:37, 13 May 2007

Monorail Switching

I was confused about how monorail switches, espeically the one in the diagram. Until Google told me. [1] Especially: [2] - you can see the Contemporary Resort in the background.

I hope the edit takes x1987x 03:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Erroneous Image

The image used in this article, Image:WDW MK Railroad and Monorail.png, contains four errors that I saw. I would fix the errors myself, but I do not know how to edit images on Wikipedia.

Error 1: The color codings for load/unload at the Magic Kingdom station are incorrect. Unload (red) is between the two beams. Load (blue) is on the exterior and interior of the beams.

Error 2: Switchbeams 1 and 2 are shown incorrectly. These are the two switchbeams comprising the crossover from the Exterior beam to the Lagoon beam between the Magic Kingdom station and the Contemporary Resort. The image shows the crossover going from southwest to northeast. The crossover actually goes the other way: from northwest to southeast. The switch connecting Exterior to the spurline leading back to Shops is a three-way switch. In the northern throw, it leads to the spurline. Center throw is mainline Exterior. Southern throw is the crossover to Lagoon. You can see the three-way throw in this image: [3]. The left beam is Exterior, the right beam is Lagoon. The switch in Exterior is currently at center. You can see the end of a beam to the left of the switch. This is the end of the spurline to Shops. You can see a small, 2-foot piece of beam to the south of the switch as well. This is the crossover to Lagoon.

Error 3: Base (the station at the Transportation and Ticket Center) has been redesigned. The load platform between the beams exclusively serves the Exterior beam. The upper platform inside of Lagoon is now combined load/unload for the Lagoon beam. This platform should be made black to be consistent with depiction of the combined load/unload platforms at the resort hotels.

Error 4: The text "No actual crossover track; the track segments simply move into place" does not make sense. It is certainly a crossover. If you would like to think that a crossover requires some beam, then call the 2-foot segment of beam that connects switches 1 and 2 when in the crossover throw the crossover beam. Additionally, I would consider the correct terminology to be "beam" rather than "track".

--66.168.28.254 04:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

How are Mark VI's powered?

What is the method of propulsion for the monorail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.159.22 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You can find information in the article Mark VI monorail HeadMouse 08:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

This page on monorails.org has some information that might be useful. ×Meegs 03:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Controls for the Mark VI

When riding Monorail black up front, the pilot indicated that the system is controlled via a Java application. Anyone back him up on this? I added an image of the controls which certainly look Java based. Was very interesting controls and I wish I knew what it all meant. --Napnet 13:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You can see in this article pics of the older control panels and the new touch screen controls.

And here is more information on the Mark VI Monorail

—Preceding unsigned comment added by HeadMouse (talk • contribs) 12:49, 6 May 2007

24.98.83.176

You can not copyright facts.

Also it has been established that www.monorailyellow.com is not a valid source for monorail information since they have posted incorrect information and is the reason they are not listed at the bottom in the References. HeadMouse 05:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

Fair use rationale for Image:Monorail sign.jpg

Image:Monorail sign.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Getting tired

Getting real tired of having to come in here and fix this article everyday because Wikipedia or some joker feels the need to delete something or change stuff around. HeadMouse 20:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

If you are not familiar with the official policy on Ownership of articles, you may wish to review it now. In part, it states "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." No Wikipedia article is ever "complete" or "perfect," so other editors will always be wondering in to make tweaks and updates. Since WikiProject Trains has given the article a B score on its Quality scale, this article will need a lot of edits if it is to ever be improved to good article-status or higher. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not claim to own this article. but I do try to keep it clean and up to date and do not enjoy seeing some person come alone a mess it all up. HeadMouse 19:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

I have a start here.--trey 23:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What is that all about? HeadMouse 19:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

Deleted Information May 9

There was an edit on May 9, 2007 by Mr. Fish that cut more than 5,000 bytes from the article. This edit carried the comment "-information that belongs in another article". Did that information actually make it into another article, or is it just lost? Roothog 22:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is a mess. It is in need of major work, but I will see what he did on that day.--trey 22:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

His edit was reverted by "Mr.Owner"--trey 22:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but then Kralizec! re-reverted it back to the short version. The deleted content is still lost. I don't mind seeing text deleted, but if it's marked "belongs in another article", then I'd hope that it actually was moved somewhere else and not just dropped on the floor. Roothog 22:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the content was meaningless. It said how to emergency evacuate the train ect. See What Wikipedia is Not.--trey 23:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

You guys really need to look up the word. You are supposedly replacing an article that has already been accepted and meets all Wikipedia guidelines and accepted by the TrainsWiki Project. There is no need to rewrite it. HeadMouse 03:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

Actually, your the vandal. Ever hear of What Wikipedia is Not? Its one of the core guidelines on wikipeida. Your version is filled with irrelevant material. Also, assuming ownership of articles is not accepted.--trey 03:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And apparently you think you OWN this article and you are posting tons of irrelevant material. HeadMouse 16:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

Your statement that the article has been "accepted by the TrainsWiki Project" in its current form is disingenuous at best. The article's edit history clearly shows that on 9 May MrFish, a long-standing member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, removed a large chunk of the article noting "-information that belongs in another article" [4]. You then immediately reverted his changes [5]. This illustrates the fact that while you are attempting to frame this content dispute as being one where outsiders are going against the goals of WikiProject Trains, your actions in reverting all edits to this article -including those made by other WikiProject Trains users- show the truth that you are merely promoting your own agenda. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)