Talk:Walt Disney World Monorail System

Recent accident information removed

After the tragic death of a driver on July 5, 2009 one would assume that something about this incident should be added to this page. Nothing mentions it at all in the page. The page is locked and cites "news" events but does not specify what news. The justification for removal is given as "reproduces information on another page" because the incidents listing has some information on the accident. As this accident may be related to safety of the overall system which is described in detail, the accident should be covered on this page as well as a listing on the incidents page. Additionally, the poor man who lost his life deserves a mention here. Additionally, the cause has not been disclosed, so this is an open issue and not just an incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgPBurdell (talk • contribs) 20:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Accidents involving death on Disney rides are listed on the incidents page as well as the main page in many cases, such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Thunder_Mountain_Railroad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing_Ship_Columbia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_America_(Disney) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_Everest There is no reason not to have something about this accident on the main page of this article, unless you are a Disney sockpuppet trying to spin media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgPBurdell (talk • contribs) 20:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I just eyeballed these four articles, and while some editing is still needed to them, the overall concept is in-line with what is being done here. Thanks for bringing those to our attention. SpikeJones (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue is too hot and too volatile at this point. This matter needs to be discussed. Nothing is being hidden, nothing is being spun. I concur there should be some mention, but it shouldn't be front and center in the lead section, either. Let's be patient and gather everything together and develop a consensus. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What consensus is needed? Is there disagreement on the facts as currently presented? How is this too volatile to be addressed on the page? It is in the news right now. People may be looking for information, why not have a single sentence in the lead section? As for completely pulling it off the page, that is ridiculous as stated previously since other rides include accidents on the main page as well as a listing on the incident page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgPBurdell (talk • contribs) 20:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there is some lack of consensus. I've requested a 24-hour full protect to let things cool down and discuss it here. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just trying to maintain the article the way it was until we establish something. Patience is a virtue, and the project will be better for it. And because the situation is so current, there are many other sources that readers will search for first ... after the dust has settled, then they'll come here. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the lack of consensus on facts? You are not saying I am wrong, but you keep removing factual information from the article. We can present the facts that are currently available. The situation is current and the current information should be presented in a fair and factual way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgPBurdell (talk • contribs) 20:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The lack of consensus is how the facts should be presented. Based on your revision, this is the only incident that has ever occurred on the system (assuming the person viewing the article had never heard of it and knew nothing of its history). In your eagerness to add this in, you're missing the fact that a number of other incidents are in the same incidents article. Those are no less notable--while non-fatal, they do involve a very high-profile transport system--yet are getting lost in the shuffle of a breaking news event. Also, why does this incident belong in the opening section? This is what I'm concerned about ... not what information is presented, but how it is presented. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the only death that has ever occurred on the system AFAIK. Those other incidents are less notable as they were not fatal. They should be background, they were already lost in the shuffle since they were not in the page. Perhaps the incidents sections should include the fatal accident and more clearly cite the incidents page, rather than having a section with no information but a cite to another page. The incident is breaking news and probably the most notable thing that has ever happened for the Disney World Monorail. As a result, it deserves mention in the head of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgPBurdell (talk • contribs) 20:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you review this diff, when the incident was first reported, you'll see there is indeed an entire section devoted to the various other incidents that have occurred on the system. At this diff, all the incidents have been removed. The editor who made the change is known amongst the Disney articles and I know is working in good faith, as I know you are. So we need to get to the bottom of (a) why all the incidents were removed here but do appear in other attraction articles and (b) what option is the better of the two. As to the reason for having it in the opening section, I looked up the Washington Metro article to see if its recent incident was in the Metro article's lead section, and it isn't. Again, this is a dispute that needs to be resolved here instead of in an edit war ... and I do appreciate you discussing the matter here. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jumping in, a few points: personal feelings aside, WP doesn't care about "how tragic" a situation is. The facts are to be presented in a neutral, unbiased manner and need to adhere to WP policies. One such is to use unbiased, citable, non-forum, non-opinion sources. Another is the exclusion of names, per WP:BLP (as discussed at length previously in other "Incidents" articles, available upon request). All major park incidents have been consolidated onto the Incidents at Disney parks page, in part to keep each of the individual articles from expanding beyond a reasonable size (hence the reason to split them off originally), as well as to provide a central location for all such incidents for those people looking to see the full range of items without having to visit each individual attraction article. If you see other ride articles that have incidents included in them, then please point them out so those articles can be adjusted similarly. The news is still breaking, and to worry about why there is no huge mention here (when there is a link to the primary article where information is being updated as it is verified) is a bit silly to me. There is no reason to mention this incident in the opening paragraph at all - to do so would be akin to saying "The Waltz is a dance from hundreds of years ago, and 5 people died while learning it." in that opening sentence. The deaths are not the focus of the Waltz article, just like the accident should not be the focus here. SpikeJones (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm doing this correctly, but I wanted to point out incorrect information pertaining to the recent accident. The article says Austin was driving Monorail Pink and that he crashed into another train. This is not correct. Austin was driving Monorail Purple and was crashed into by Monorail Pink which was going in reverse. The driver of Pink thought he was backing into Base after having switched lines, but was still on the EPCOT beam and was in fact backing into Concourse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.25.241 (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This article does not contain the information you are refering to. If you are refering to the consolidated info located at Incidents at Disney parks, then be aware that THAT article also does not mention which monorail the victim was driving (mainly due to conflicts in original reporting). Once reliable sources can be cited with the correct information, it will be added accordingly. Many of us are aware of the details that are being talked about internally, but WP policy states that we must wait for outside reporting of that info before it is added to the article. SpikeJones (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The line has now been deleted, but it was there to begin with or I wouldn't have noted it on here. It even used his name. Pending further verified information, it now simply says two trains collided and a driver was killed. This is much better and accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.25.241 (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why does the intro section not have anything about the accident? It contains technical detail of little general interest. Who cares about Mark IV or Mark VI monorails and when they were employed? That means nothing to most people. This accident is the most notable thing that has ever happened to the system. It made national news, probably for the first time. Why not have it on the intro section? If anything, most of this section should be deleted to conform to the formatting of many other Disney articles, leaving only the first sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.70.179.26 (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on as to exactly how this information should be presented, and where. Feel free to visit the talk page at Incidents at Disney parks to see what is being discussed. As to the rest of the article's contents ... the Walt Disney World Monorail System is not defined by this incident, nor does its occurrence supersede the notability of the rest of the information provided. I would counter that many people would like to learn more about the nuts and bolts of the system, since their first exposure to it may well be through this incident's coverage in other media. Further, if you look at the article for the Washington Metro, which also had a fatal incident recently, its lead section also doesn't mention said incident. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with McDoob on this. This article is a transportation based article about something at Disney World, not a Disney World based article on transportation at Disney. I believe the interests that come to this page are much better served by following transportation standards compared to Disney standards for the articles. Monorailpilot (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent monorail edits disputed

Knotslanding: Thank you for your recent edits to the page Walt Disney World Monorail System. In my opinion, you are altering factually correct information to be factually incorrect. Please stop this practice, or cite verifiable references to demonstrate conclusively that your edits are valid. Notable incorrect statements introduced into these pages include:

• You reversed the terms "base" and "concourse" in the description of the platforms at TTC. Please provide a citation showing that your use of the terms reflects current practice among monorail cast members.

I will revert this edit if you are unable to provide appropriate citation. Again, thank you for working on this page, but please take a moment to verify your facts. Other editors: please see similar comment at Mark VI monorail. Roothog (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

DO you have nothing better to do? Citation BASE: HOME TO THE CENTRAL LOCATION OF THE SYSTEM BEING THE CENTRAL CONTROL BOOTH ALREADY MENTIONED IN THIS ARTICLE!!!! Dang man get off my back. Knotslanding (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC) comments by indefinitely blocked sock redacted

Oh and if you want CORRECT terms. then no real cast member uses those terms. they are in the handbook (if you can find one) but CM's say things like "TTC Express line, or TTC Epcot line or TTC resort line or Contemporary express line, ect. So if you want to remove the whole paragraph, fine by me. Knotslanding (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As the usage of "Base" and "Concourse" is specified in the current Monorail Operations SOP, it's not available as a cite for Wikipedia, but I can say from first-hand experience that your information IS incorrect. Having worked in the department as a driver and trainer for six years between 1999 and 2005, and having kept in contact to the present time with many railies that continue to work in the department, I suspect that I probably have just a bit better knowledge of the subject matter than you. You continue to say that the Epcot side is known as "the Base" apparently on the basis of the location of Central's tower, but fail to acknowledge the history of the station - the entire Epcot side of the station didn't become operational until 1980 or so, and the "Base" designation had been in use by the department for exterior/lagoon (Yes, LAGOON, not "interior") for years prior. Rather than change the station name that everyone was already familiar with, the moniker "Concourse" was adopted for the Epcot side (and Central's new home). As mentioned in a previous edit, if there is doubt, one can always call Transportation Base in the Westgate building at the TTC for confirmation, or feel free to ask any monorail cast member you happen to see. Also, Cast Members may refer to the stations as "TTC Express", "TTC Resort", and "TTC Epcot" when speaking directly to guests to avoid confusion, but internally the stations in question are ALWAYS known as "Base", "Concourse", and "Epcot". The information in question is uncited in the article anyway, so what exactly is this supposed "factual information" being based on to begin with? If you prefer to continue to argue the point, I suggest the entire portion of the article be removed on the basis of being uncited, rather than be incorrect. NormalVisual (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

1999-2005 huh??? Gee then I guess my study of Walt Disney world and the Walt Disney World Monorail System since the early 1980's till present day and having almost literally grown up in the MK,is nothing compared to your whole six years of working there huh? Maybe you need to go back and re-read the hand book. Also might want to do a little history lesson. from 1971 till 1981 before the EPCOT line was opened, the MK lines were the base. However when the EPCOT line opened along with it the central control booth, then the EPCOT line became the BASE. Now as for names of the line. BOTH the MK lines go around the lagoon. It makes no sense for one to be called lagoon and one not. No they are not called Interior or exterior either. They are referred to as RESORT and EXPRESS. The central Control booth calls them that. The monorail shop calls them that. Monorail pilots call them that. How do I know this? Well, other then my MANY MANY trips in the cab of a monorail listening to the pilot talk back and forth to the base, and with quiet a few of those rides being during training sessions. I have also heard a few of the recording of monorail com chatter. Oh wait, now you being Mr. know-it-all and working on the monorails for a whole 6 years will tell me the radio calls are not recorded right? There is no point in deleting CORRECT useful information from the article just because you feel that after a whole 6 years of driving a monorail and that being 2 years ago, you think you know everything about them. You continue to make your changes and I will continue to come back and fix them. Knotslanding (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess this says it all. A guest who has no experience driving the trains, no experience actually working the platform, has never visited the inside of either the Concourse or Epcot console areas, has never been inside the monorail shop (taking the steam train tour and seeing the downstairs area doesn't count), but has ridden in the cab of a train a lot, "heard a few recordings" (and yes, everyone in the department knows the radio chatter is recorded, and the recordings often come into play when a driver is accused of a VOCP), and *maybe* has even been in the cab during a MAPO check obviously knows more than a cast member that worked there for several years, trained personnel in both platform operations as well as driving (being a trainer requires a whole different certification above and beyond just being a driver, incidentally), and is still in regular contact with several of the central coordinators and a number of other monorail cast, including a couple of the maintenance folks. Fix the article all you want because I refuse to argue anymore. Enjoy wallowing in your ignorance, and understand that you sound like a complete fool trying to compare 20 years of riding the trains with even six weeks of actually driving them, especially to those of us that actually do have that experience. Oh, and as regards the Base/Concourse dispute - the next time you're down there, see if the cast will let you take a look at the schedule sheet - there's an identical copy at every station. The fact that you'll find more than twice as many people assigned to Base as there are assigned to Concourse should be a very strong indication of which station is which. You'll also find that the sheet indicates Base is almost always staffed later than Concourse, owing to the fact that the Epcot beam is usually shut down before the lagoon (resort) beam is. NormalVisual (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You keep talking a lot but you have yet to show any facts proving you know what your saying. You throw a few things like "I worked there for 6 years." and "Check the staff sheets." but if you had any real brains, being a CM you would have a copy of the hand book and could scan pages with proof and show them... Guess that would flatten you half @$$ attempted at being Mr. Know-it-all. I never said I ONLY got my knowledge from riding the trains and listening to a few recordings. But I would bet after almost 30 years of studying them and WDW, I know more then you think. And don't hand me the crap of "I worked there I know it all. I have talked to CM that have been driving Monorails for a few years that don't even know what model train they are driving. "Mark what?" So your "I drove the monorails for 6 years. " don't impress me any. BTW next time you are there, stop into the monorail shop and ask some of the guys that have been there for over 20 years for a history lesson. You might learn something. BTW No I have not taken the steam trains tour. But I Have been deeper into the Monorail shop then 90% of the monorail drivers ever even dreamed of. I have seen them being worked on. I have been there early in the morning when they are powered up for the first time that day. So don't pretend to think that I am just "some guest" that has ridden the monorail a few times. So I suggest you take you petty six years of driving experience and go drive the buses. Knotslanding (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Attention NormalVisual and Knotslanding! I would like to remind you that as per Wikipedia's official policy on No original research, your opinions and/or personal experiences are explicitly prohibited from being included. A good rule of thumb is "cite it or forget it." --Kralizec! (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes God know's we don't want someone that ACTYALLY knows the information to post it. We have to rely on *IF* they can post a link to the same information. So I guess that makes Wikipeda not an encyclopedia, but nothing more then a link hub for the internet. Knotslanding (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Little added info direct from a CURRENT monorail driver. Me:2 Monorails have white deltas on them Coral and Lime. Coral has a delta to identify it from what color? Him:Pink and Orange. Me:Lime has a delta to identify it from what color? Him:Green And if you care to read it yourself: Knotslanding (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather than continue to edit war over the lines in question, I added {{fact}} tags to the disputed parts. If we cannot find a reliable, third-party, published source that can be used to cite the information one way or another, then the disputed parts should be removed from the article. Is a month enough time for everyone to do their research and insert citations as needed? --Kralizec! (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The information should never be removed. It is part of the article and is useful information. so not I don't think a month is long enough. The cite tags need to be removed and the information left alone. Knotslanding (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way, but you may wish to review Wikipedia's official WP:SOURCE policy. It states in part that the "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The section in question has been disputed by NormalVisual, and if the listed "facts" cannot be verified either way, they should be removed. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

BLAH BLAH BLAH, God Forbid we have TRUTH in an article. The facts have been in this article for some time now. And only now that some "Mr. Know-it-all" comes along and thinks because he was a driver for a few days he knows all about them. Remove the information. I will wait till things die down and add the FACTS back. Knotslanding (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Six years is a bit more than "a few days", and you continually gloss over the fact that I was a *trainer*. It was my job to actually teach people the system terminology, how to run the stations and drive the trains, and Disney actually paid me money to do so. Being a trainer also meant that we had to demonstrate a much more thorough knowledge of the system than most drivers. They thought highly enough of me such that I often got the people that had failed previous checkouts in order to try to salvage them before transferring them. They also thought highly enough of me to make sure I was in a train (Black, along with 11 other very good drivers in the others) during New Year's Eve 1999 because they really weren't sure what the trains were going to do at midnight, and wanted people in them that could handle anything that came up. But, as you say, there's no possible way the knowledge of a driver that worked the stations and was behind the console 52 weeks a year for six years (as opposed to "a few days") could POSSIBLY compare with that of someone that [gasp] rode in the front cab a lot over 30 years and might have gotten the occasional peek at a couple of backstage areas. As I said, I quit on the edit war because I'm not going to continue to argue with or correct someone that's just too ignorant and hardheaded to know what he doesn't know. I absolutely am disputing the correctness of the article on a number of points, but I just don't care anymore whether it gets fixed, so enjoy your little personal kingdom on the Internet. Kralizec! - as regards citations for the article - that's going to be a bit tricky, as it's information internal to Disney and as such is covered in Disney's Monorail Operations Standard Operations Guide (SOPs), which are going to be the only truly objective and authoritative source. Unfortunately they're considered proprietary and covered by copyright, and Disney has *no* sense of humor about such things. I personally would be fine with just removing the disputed content, but I'm done trying to ensure it's correct. NormalVisual (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Normal Visual is correct. If it matters that much, I will scan my drive training manual that shows the station locations where Base is the original part of the TTC station and Concourse is the Epcot side.

Regarding Resort/Lagoon names, recently management has attempted to rename the beams from Exterior and Lagoon to Express/Resort for operational continuity with what is used toward guests. These names however have not been change on ANY operational station console in the system as of December 2008. If you walk into the console at the Transportation and Ticket center, the voltage indicators are CLEARLY labeled exterior and lagoon. The LMCU2 train console will show the beam as Express/Resort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.156.166 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 26 December 2008

If you say so, your wrong, but if you say so. I fixed it back to the correct information.. I am sure you or someone will come along and try and change it back, I will wait 24 hrs and fix it again.Knotslanding (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've scanned and placed two images on my personal webserver. Both of these are from the monorail training journal, issued to me in 2001. The first shows the telephone numbers for each station (Which will also serve as a citation for the station names). The first image ALSO shows the beam name as lagoon and Monorail Base as a station included in its intercom system. This system was not extended to the Epcot Beam including concourse. The second shows the LMCU1 console manual which in the lower right shows the beams as Epcot/Express/Lagoon. I don't feel like editing this page to shut you up, because frankly you are wrong. I can understand the confusion between Express/Exterior and Resort/Lagoon as these names have been fluid over the past 5 years, but Concourse and Base have never changed. I've been a cast member for nearly 8 years, and it is misinformation from people like you that make things worse for everyone. Just accept that you are incorrect on the naming of the stations, that both you and normalvisual are correct on the naming of the beams (And the reasons behind that confusion) and drop the subject. Your input to Wikipedia is appreciated, but in this case it is misguided and not helping the overall goal of this article.

In any case...

http://www.tiggerfan.net:81/wws/numbers.jpg http://www.tiggerfan.net:81/wws/lmcu.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.212.71 (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

http://www.monorailyellow.com/mediaGallery.asp#id=4&num=179 will also show the beams labeled as exterior and lagoon, just above the voltage meters.

Narration section

| accessdate = 2007-10-05 }}</ref> During the system's early years, the trains featured Wagner's narration of the sights and scenery along the way, as well as information on special events, the resort, and the monorail system itself. Since that time, other announcers have provided these narrations, yet the "stand clear" announcement remains in Wagner's voice. This is at least partially due to the fact that the audio for the doors is generated via a separate system than that for the rest of the spiels.

I will agree with that. that is not what I was undoing and I guess I forgot to leave the tag in the revert. Knotslanding (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC) comments by indefinitely blocked sock redacted

I am changing it back to "narrations" instead of "spiels." A spiel is a sales pitch. To narrate something is to explain as it goes along. The speech they give is a narration of what's going on. The article even calls it a narration twice just three sentences earlier: "...feature Wagner's narration..." and "...provided these narrations..." This suggests to me that narrations is the more appropriate word, either way (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Spiel is what it officially called by Disney. It is not a narration, even by your definition. He is not telling a story, he is telling what you are seeing and where you are going. Explaining things about the park, ect. That is a spiel. I fixed the other miss-uses of the word narration too. Knotslanding (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source that shows this is officially what Disney calls it? either way (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. take a trip to Florida, Cali, Hong Kong, Paris, ect Any Disney park you choose. Ask any cam that works any attraction (including the monorails) what the speech is called. Guess what they will say.... Just guess. IT'S A SPIEL!.Knotslanding (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This is original research. What we need is reliable sources that say that Disney calls it a spiel, not "I heard it from a guy..." either way (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No you need to accept the fact that this and EVERY other Disney article on Wikipedia, and the internet calls it a spiel. ALso maybe pick up a little book called a Dictionary once in a while. Knotslanding (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, as I told you, a spiel is a sales pitch. What exactly are they selling by telling you "there on the left is a lake"? No, they're narrating the scenery as it goes past. They're telling what is there, which is a narration. Again, this is original research...you need to provide sources rather than say "well everyone says it". either way (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why they are called SAFETY SPIELS right, because they are trying to sell you something... huh? well, maybe trying to sell you your life. Narration is telling a story Like The voice over in Grinch. This is not a story. You want facts. There is a site you can go to. www.google.com It has TONS of information on the matter. Knotslanding (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You really need to drop your attitude, seriously. You will likely be blocked again if you remain hostile like this. Again, spiel = "a usually high-flown talk or speech, esp. for the purpose of luring people to a movie, a sale, etc.; pitch." Narrate = "to add a spoken commentary to (a film, television program, etc.): to narrate a slide show. " They are adding spoken commentary to the monorail ride. Unless you can provide reliable sources that say that Disney calls it a spiel, this should be narration throughout that section, either way (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

And you need to get off my back seriously, and I am sure I will be blocked. You seem to enjoy that. Again you want reliable sources go to www.google.com they have tons of sources. I KNOW the facts, Everyone else KNOWS the facts. YOU are the only one that has a problem with this fact. You want to learn them, do your own foot work. Knotslanding (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

See the verifiability policy which states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". You need to provide sources for this, not me. either way (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You are the one griping for citation, no one else. You want it. you go get it. other wise LEAVE IT ALONE. Knotslanding (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Proof that it is a spiel, from the disney monorail drive training journal picture of the lower part of the LMCU 1 console where it is clearly labeled as a speil stop/play button.

http://www.tiggerfan.net:81/wws/spiel.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.212.71 (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'm here due to a request posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion. After reading the conversation above and looking over the article's edit history, here is my opinion:

• "Spiel" is the industry accepted term for this subject. However, Wikipedia is intended for a wider audience than those who use specific jargon in their industry. Therefore, I think "narration" is more appropriate for this article.
• Nevertheless, a note should be included that "spiel" is the term used by industry insiders when referring to monorail narrations.
• People working in the industry, especially monorail designers, are sources, for better or worse. They are reliable in that they have expertise in their subject area, and verifiable in that anyone is free to seek them out and ask questions. The only problem is that these sources aren't published, and that prevents us from using such sources in Wikipedia.
• In this case, it appears to be common knowledge among monorail workers that the correct term is "spiel". We don't cite sources for common knowledge.
• If the image posted above is indeed a monorail control panel, then that should suffice as a source.

In summary, I'd say leave "narration" in but include a note that the narration is known as a "spiel" to those working with the monorail. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You can see in this picture that it definitely is a monorail console as shown with Bill Nye. http://www.monorails.org/webpix%202/FilmBillNye1.jpg I also think this third opinion is more then adequate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.156.166 (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, Amatulic. I think the version now reflects the opinion you gave, either way (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

References

Front cab riding

Almost all of the front cab riding section has needed sources since April 2008. Since this has been tagged as such for eight months, I removed most of it yesterday. It was now restored, without sources added to it. I believe that this section should be removed unless it can be sourced. either way (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

And NONE of the front cab ridding section needs sources. however there is one part that is requesting source when a image of the card is even posted. (or was) You removed it to be vindictive. Knotslanding (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)comments by indefinitely blocked sock redacted

No, I removed it because A. the image was a copyright violation and B. there was no reliable sources given. either way (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The image is not a copyright violation. And there is no need for sources in that section. There is nothing said in that section that requires sources. But as I said the image itself was a source. This article has WAT too many "sources needed" tags. The article can sit here for years with the same information. then a new Wikipedia mod joins and just because THEY don't know of the information, they want to throw in a citation needed tag. A lot of information cannot be cited as it comes from manuals that are not available for the public.

But you know what. Just as in the past, I will let YOU make your changes. I have a copy of this article and the CORRECT information saved. In a few months after you have gotten over your power trip, I will come back and fix the article. It's amazing that this article has sat here this long with no problems. Then all of sudden YOU show up and all hell breaks loose. Take a hint. Go find another article to harass. Knotslanding (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out yesterday, I first edited this article in June 2007, a year before you started editing, so it's not like I'm just showing up out of nowhere like you claim. Additionally, the image was deleted on commons as being a copyright violation. The image clearly said copyright Disney on it, yet it was being used with a free license which was false. Sources are still needed in that section. This sentence, for example: "Guests who board the front of either the Express or Epcot trains must disembark at the next station, while those boarding the front of a Resort train generally are allowed stays no longer than a single round-trip circuit" needs a citation. Where is this set as policy? Who says it "generally" happens this way? Did someone sit down and calculate this out? either way (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

And as I pointed out yesterday I have been on Wikipedia a LOT LONGER then you think. As for your Guests who board the front of either the Express or Epcot trains must disembark at the next station," This is a standard rule at WDW. Anyone that has been in the front knows this. "Who says it "generally" happens this way?" The cast Members that work there, The hand book they are givien when they get a job there. But again (since you wont listen) the Cast Member hand book is not something they hand out to guest. Cast Member hand books are not available to the public so they can not be linked for resource. But again as I said. go a head and delete and trash this article as you want. I have the original saved and will fix it all in a few months after you have moved on.Knotslanding (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Still on the subject of Front Cab riding, I believe that on the resort line, different monorails have different stops where they let people on. Is it worth listing this in the main page (ie which stops for which colour). Likewise, is it worth mentioning which colours run on which route? --TimothyJacobson (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This is no longer the case (Assigned resort trains) as the new cast deployment system for monorails bases each driver out of the Magic Kingdom OR the transportation and ticket center and a train is not assigned to each station as it was in the past. Also, the colors on each beam change daily (And during the day as well). Monorailpilot (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

New Source

I have added as a source a thread on a cast member message board discussing all kinds of aspects of the system. At least 3 current monorail drivers are contributing to the discussion. Stupid Guest Tricks Thread Kurt (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I question the authoritativeness of the source, as moderators in this discussion has already said that cast members editing the article are not authoritative themselves without proper supporting sources, so what would make cast members posting on another source any more authoritative. 64.132.156.166 (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, message boards/forums are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Sorry! either way (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Kinda how Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source on research papers.75.90.5.251 (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Then how can we source this info? This is definitely relevant information that should be included in the article. How can you possibly justify that the information should totally be removed? Kurt (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I am working on getting that same info sourced to make you guys happy. Kurt (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't about making people happy, it is about meeting the Wikipedia guidelines. Disney Cast Members themselves aren't perfect sources of information. I know because I saw at least 2 or 3 pieces of misinformation that were incorrect on stupid guest tricks. They are definitely more authoritative then lay people, but they still can't be sourced. See the comments from the moderator above in the third opinion. Pictures, technical manuals, official Disney and Bombardier (Or Martin Marietta for the Mark IV) websites or simple statements of fact that appear in various places are more authoritative then a discussion board. The problem with this article is that it contains a subject that is popular, has many people that KNOW a lot of information about it, and has very limited authoritative resources available to the public for sourcing. It leads to a LOT of frustration when facts that we *ALL* know are true cannot be sourced. Someone even marked the photo of a back of a monorail co-pilots license as a copyright violation so we lost the source for the 4 person limit to the front cab. I frankly wish that I could take myself and eight to ten of my most knowledgeable friends who work in monorails (Both front line and maintenance) and rewrite everything about this article and have it declared authoritative. But we can't. We need to provide sources. This article has a history of this issue and unfortunately exceptions can't be made.Monorailpilot (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

So we had a perfectly good source that had the information but we can't display it due to copyright. Can't we still include the information and make a note of that issue? We have a paper source for it, Monorail Copilot License. If it was only that specific image that was a copyright violation, I would be glad to take a picture myself. Kurt (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A source that is copyrighted would still be copyrighted if you took a photo. You can't just take pictures of a book and distribute that copyright free.

No, but someone could scan and post the monorail pilot card on a web site and source to that site instead. Leaving Wikipedia out of the copyright loop.75.90.5.251 (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that there has to be some way of putting the image up on wiki commons, perhaps just cropping the line about front cabs and still falling under fair use doctrine, but I'm not familiar enough with copyright law to do so. Couple this with the fact that there are still numerous people out there that believe we can take more then 4 guests, and will continue to come back and challenge anyone that says *4* and you end up with this stupid mexican standoff of a situation. If I could, I'd post the entire monorail SOG online so everyone would be happy and this article could be complete with official sources, but somehow I don't think Disney would approve of that.Monorailpilot (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Route Diagram

Walt Disney World Monorail System
Maintenance facility (not open to public) Magic Kingdom Contemporary Resort Grand Floridian Resort Transportation and Ticket Center Polynesian Village Resort Epcot Skyliner (at Int'l. Gateway; via walk through park) Express and resort services Resort service only No passengers Watercraft transfer

Can this be of use? I figured it would fit nicely in the Infobox, though it may need some editing to be compatible with it. j.reed (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh. It's not as clear as it should be to be encyclopedic. In its current form, it's not very helpful...or accurate (to scale, laid out in a realistic manner, etc). Especially compared to the route map that is currently on the page SpikeJones (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a very nice schematic but I think a more accurate depiction is more useful. Powers ^T 13:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Route diagrams on Wikipedia are not made to scale, so that shouldn't be an issue. In my opinion the representation of the stops on the Magic Kingdom loop are spot on, and I removed the curve in the Epcot loop. The ferry service could also be easily removed as it isn't relevant to this article. This graphical map seems to be the exception to the current way Monorail articles are. With the exception of Detroit People Mover, none of the US-operating monorails have to-scale route maps. 7 of the other 11 systems have a Wiki route map diagram. Two of the 4 that don't have one have 2 or fewer stations and the Morgantown PRT is a unique system. That means of the US Monorails that can be represented by a route diagram, only Detroit People Mover and this article (with their to-scale maps) lack a route diagram. j.reed (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but what does it show that the scale map doesn't? Maybe I just don't get the point of schematic diagrams for rail routes. Powers ^T 14:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't have any copyright issues like the image that was just removed does. I am going to replace it with my map. j.reed (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hold the phone; what copyright issues? Powers ^T 13:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the high resolution version of the route diagram image (File:WaltDisneyWorldMonorailSystem.jpeg), it contains a copyright notice by "wdwNEWStoday". This makes it ineligible for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons because it is likely copyrighted and contains a watermark. The Disney text logo is probably not eligible for copyright (though definitely a trademark). On the other hand, the image can be replaced with a free equivalent. It would not be to difficult to make a similar image that would serve the same purpose as many of the components of the image (such as the map) are public information. I could make an SVG (vector) image based using a USGS map as a base. --WillMcC (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I ASSURE you that wdwNEWStoday is not the copyright holder of that image that was posted. I work with teh founders of wdwNEWStoday site and know for a FACT that they got the image from another source.Honda Enoch (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC) comments by sock of indefinitely blocked editor redacted

The original is listed as "Own work by uploader" so I think someone has to just contact that person and ask them to make a wikipedia version sans watermark and TM'ed logos. I like the wiki route diagram better as I explained above so I'm not going to be the one to ask. j.reed (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The image that is in place now (assuming created by you since you originally asked if it can be used) lacks useful information, such as clearly defining the express loop from the resort loop. You have a legend but your lines sit on top of each other in the image and can not be shown which is which. No one can tell from your image if teh resort beam is on the inside or out side, which direction it runs, ect.Honda Enoch (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC) comments by sock of indefinitely blocked editor redacted

Ok, I made a quick image to show the different lines and such, I will make a better one later. :)Honda Enoch (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC) comments by sock of indefinitely blocked editor redacted

Um, why does the current route diagram not show the Grand Floridian station? I'm removing the current diagram (without a replacement) since it's factually incorrect. Roothog (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this MS Paint drawing is encyclopedic, it appears that the Express and Resort services stop at all stations, and it doesn't indicate spurs either. For your concerns, transit lines using the Wikipedia:Route diagram template don't indicate multi-tracked lines as two lines. They indicate express or local service by station indicators (the larger or smaller stations). Since the express and resort service run in opposing directions, I've chosen to not indicate a direction on the route. As you can see, the Epcot service has directional icons to indicate the one-way direction. And like I said, it is common pratice for US based monorails to use the Route diagram template. I've also edited the article to further define the concepts of the system. j.reed (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

But that map is USELESS It helps NO ONE to understand that there are TWO beams going around the main loop. Who cars what program was used to make the map. At lease my map give MORE detailed information showing the different lines. The FIRST map shoed GREAT detail showing all the lines, BUT NO! It was removed for some reason. So I did my best to replace it with a detailed map showing the 2 different lines. if transit lines using the Wikipedia:Route diagram template don't indicate multi-tracked lines as two lines, then it should not be used until it is refined to allow such. Honda Enoch (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC) comments by sock of indefinitely blocked editor redacted

also you can't even click on your map to zoom in on it. it just opens one part of the map, a corner, a line, ect. atleast you can click my map for a larger view. Honda Enoch (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC) comments by sock of indefinitely blocked editor redacted

Your map fails to show proper placement of the stations as well. As you can see from my map, (or any other detailed map) the stations go TTC, then the monorail goes around a bend, then into the Contemporary, then around another bend, then into MK station, then around another bend, then into the Grand, then into the poly, then another bend, and back to TTC. Your map does not indicate what station is where, unless those little dots are the station, but they are in the wrong places and not labeled. Honda Enoch (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC) comments by sock of indefinitely blocked editor redacted

LOOK!!!! The map I have added shows the different monorail lines better then the old map that only shows ONE beam going around from TTC to MK. The map I created shows 2 different beams and explains their direction. Stop changing it back, no one could possibly be able to understand the other map at all. Honda Enoch (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC) comments by sock of indefinitely blocked editor redacted

i think the original map should be back here

it was correct and was more accurate than the one now being shown, it worked, if it is not broken dont mess with it. thank you207.98.179.41 (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the route diagram would be clearer if it has `concentric rings' to show the express and all-stops lines. (i.e. literally a separate line for each line) Maybe those familiar with railways can read it but as it stands it is not intuitively clear. Also it would be useful to detail the lengths of each line. For someone interested in the system the article as it stands doesn't give a sense of the relative relations and if a scale diagram is not to be included (as discussed above) then this would be of use. I note that in the French wikipedia article on the system (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_World_Monorail) and the article Walt Disney World Railroad both use something closer to a scale diagram: that clearly shows a line for each Line (in addition to the railroad). Tjej (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Tron

Information about the Tron monorails needs to be added. (Coral is one of them) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.156.194 (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Coral is the ONLY one so far. But don't see a need for this to be added to the article. None of the other promotional monorail coverings are listed. (The Year of a Million Dreams, Happiest Celebration on Earth, ect.) Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There was also an Atlantis wrap back in 2001. Maybe this could be listed in a more general sense (i.e., mentioning that some of the trains are occasionally wrapped for promotions), but I wouldn't lose any sleep if it wasn't there, either. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - it's basically a promotional wrap, no different from the wrap used during Year of Million Dreams. If you can find an encyclopedic reason to include it, fine. Otherwise, it's useless to mention. SpikeJones (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is note worthy that wraps are applied —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.70.168 (talk • contribs)

Great, but what's important is whether any reliable sources think it's noteworthy. Powers ^T 18:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just at Disney last week and at least one of the trains were still Tron'd out... This article states that they were reverted in December 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.234.230.254 (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Tronorail is still active. They have not taken the wrap off, nor have they announced a timetable. My guess is that the paragraph should still say that it is active until it is confirmed otherwise. Doconeill (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Identification

This is the English version of Wikipedia. So the spelling "Color" is correct. Also it has been decided that the mention of the Tron wrap does not belong in the Identification section. Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Front cab riding section

The policy on "no front cab riding" is not permanent or has not been announced so by Disney. If it has then a citation needs to be posted with the change. Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Monorail Maroon

The site being linked to about the new monorail color being maroon is quoted as saying "Rumor has it that is will be completed the end of 2010 and will have the color designation of maroon." Rumors are not allowed in Wikipedia. I feel that until it is officially announced by Disney them self, this should remain "unknown" in the Wikipedia article. Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

174.110.144.171|174.110.144.171 This user keeps adding Unsourced speculation adding the color Maroon to the Identification section. Can this person be blocked from further editing? Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

So can anything be done about this person? Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 04:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

At this point, not much. Two warnings have been left on their talk page, and it hasn't helped. Perhaps leaving a polite note asking for how they know (not what they've heard) that the new train will be Monorail Maroon. The only reason I can think of someone saying it's Maroon is because there was a maroon monorail pin released a few years ago, which is hardly enough to suggest that that is what Disney's considering. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I did leave a note to that effect on the IP's talk page. I'm willing to give the IP the benefit of the doubt, but if it's added back again without any response, that benefit is gone. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone edited the Identification section and replaced "TBD" with "Monorail Peach (white deltas)" No such monorail exists currently, nor has the color of the 12th monorail yet been identified. Everything is still a rumor at this point. I didn't put "TBD" back, as that isn't really an identification, and it can easily be added when it is determined. There didn't seem to be a need for a placeholder. Doconeill (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Slight clarification - there IS a Monorail Peach, but in Japan, not WDW. Doconeill (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Typical running schedule

I saw some edits to this recently, and wondered why this is in the article, since Wikipedia is not a travel guide. However, before I did anything, I looked at a couple of other transit system articles, notably Washington Metro, which happens to be GA-class, and thus a good metric for how a transit system article should be written. There is no mention of operating hours within that article, outside of a mention of when fares change at rush hour periods. As such, I've removed it from here as well. --McDoobAU93 02:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hatnote

I'm a bit confused as to why this article, with a rather unambiguous name, needs a clarification hatnote at the top of the article pointing editors to other articles about Disney monorails. If the names were similar, I might see that. But this one clearly says "Walt Disney World", which should be pretty straightforward. The other monorail systems (Disneyland and Tokyo Disney Resort) have links in the "See also" section. I'm thinking this would be more appropriate, but I'd like to hear others' thoughts. --McDoobAU93 00:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• The simple hatnote doesn't harm, and does reinforce which park is being talked about. I've never managed to get in straight in my head which is Disneyland and which is Disneyworld', so it's entirely possible that others will end up here when thinking about another one. I'd support adding hatnotes to the other articles rather than removing this one. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's a good idea; we should avoid hatnotes where feasible. This hatnote doesn't even help readers who might have the two resorts confused, as it has at least two redundancies: "This article is about the Walt Disney World Monorail System" (redundant with the title) and "a monorail line at the Walt Disney World Resort" (redundant with the title and with the first clause). It could be shortened to just "For the lines at other Disney Resorts, see Disney monorail," without loss of information, though I still don't think it's strictly necessary. Powers ^T 19:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Clean up?

This article has been this way for a long time, and now all of a sudden it needs clean up? Anyone else think the article is fine and the clean up box be removed? Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly not at a point where a generic cleanup tag is useful. The editor who added it mentioned "repetition and out of order information" but gave no specifics. I'd be fine with removing it. Powers ^T 00:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

MAPO

MAPO in Disney refers to the division that manufactured almost all of the animatronics and other devices in Disney parks. See http://imagineeringorg.wordpress.com/wdi-faq/ for more information.

MAPO was a division of WED (Walter Elias Disney) Enterprises which was responsible for building Disneyland in California. The name was changed to MAPO which stood for MAry POppins and later Manufacturing And Production Organization. It is now called Design and Production. There are several theories why it was named MAry POppins. One is that the robin in the movie Mary Poppins was the first product of MAPO and the division took the name because of he success of the robin in the movie. Another is that the profits of the Mary Poppins movie provided the money for the division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.70.32 (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

More information about MAPO can be found on this case: http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp3d/53/245.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.70.32 (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

MAPO is also the name of the system used on the monorails. It is their "block light" system. Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Monorail trains data

This section is completely uncited. There may well be sources in the External links or References section that discuss this, but that simply means that a proper footnote should be added at the start of this section. Not every value needs to be cited, but this information is too specific to not have SOMETHING indicating where this came from. If a reliable source cannot be found, I would propose that this be removed. For now, the tag will suffice, to give users time to find the information. --McDoobAU93 04:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Tag is not needed. You said yourself "External links or References section that discuss this". Nuff said. Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ref added, IDK how to do tags so have at it. Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You left out the key points ... there may be such information. Then again, there may not be, as well. Without a footnote to the appropriate external link or source, we have no way of knowing. I checked the source you added (by the way, posting argumentative statements in the article isn't exactly helping) and it appears to be self-published, which would not qualify as a reliable source. Please place your suggested information here until this matter is fully resolved. --McDoobAU93 04:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The site is not self published. You just refused to tag it. It is a GOOGLE SEARCH RESULT. What the hell makes you think it is self published?Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 04:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a fan-site. Almost anyone can publish a website very easily, and publish anything they'd like. However, for an encyclopedia, we need more than that. I would suggest that you review this section and this section to see why such sites cannot be used as sources for information in Wikipedia. As a pledge of good-faith, here is how this would be formatted if it were a legitimate source:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bigfloridacountry.com/monorail.htm|title=Walt Disney World Monorail System|author=Unknown|work=bigfloridacountry.com|accessdate=2012-10-19}}</ref>

--McDoobAU93 04:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's a fan site. that's where most information comes from. It has been around for many years. There are hundreds of sites like it with the SAME INFO. These type of sites are used ALL OVER wikipedia., and don't try to tell me they aren't I have seen them linked to on many wikipedia articles. I don't need to review anything. You just don't want to accept the information is valid and now has a ref link to follow up. Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Aside from assuming bad faith, which you shouldn't be doing, fan sites are simply not considered valid. Again, I provided two policy pages, here and here that explain the problems I have with this source. Just because other such cites exist doesn't make it gospel, I'm sorry to say. --McDoobAU93 05:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

And again "self published" pages are referenced ALL OVER Wikipedia. ALL WEB SITES are self published. This is why Wikipedia is such a bull shit site. You can reference 500 pages all with the same info, But because it was "self published" it's not reliable. But if some news paper site published something, even if it is wrong information, it is accepted on here as fact. Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's crudely accurate. As an encyclopedia, entries here should be reliably sourced and verifiable. Sometimes self-published sources are used, and McDoobAU93 and I have provided you with links to the pages that describe those instances. And yes, sometimes reliable publications get the facts wrong. But, they have an editorial review process, and generally if one gets it wrong then there is another publication that gets it right. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

But when there are multiple "self published" sites with the same info then it stands to reason that facts are reliable. Then when someone does reference a newspaper article or book with the information, it is removed claiming copyright bull shit. It's a loose loose situation. This is the major problem with Wikipedia. If THEY didn't publish it, they don't want it referenced. This article has been just fine for a long time now. Then some troll jerk comes along and starts removing half the information for no reason. You do realize that if it were not for "self published" sites, Wikipedia wouldn't be 1/5th of what it is now. There are references to Monorail Society on this article. By your definition, that is a "self published" FAN SITE. Fans of monorails created it and run it. But it has reliable, proven, information (and I guess the word "society" in their name helps make them sound official). Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You're falling into the all-too-common trap where people say "I've seen fan-sites used on Wikipedia before so it must be OK". Your desire to maintain this information is being challenged, just as any such sourced (or unsourced) information can be. Since you are defending its inclusion, it is up to you (even if you didn't originally add it) to back up the information with a reliable source. The source you provided has been deemed unreliable because it is self-published. You now have two options: one is to find a new source (as you suggest, there's tons out there, so it shouldn't be too hard to find) that is considered reliable; the second is to concede that the section is uncited and therefore subject to removal. It's up to you. --McDoobAU93 20:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I have provided a source. It is a reliable source. There are many others like it, but you will discredit them as they are "self published", so what's the point. There is an option 3. I can concede for now and re-add the information at a later date when the heat is off the article. Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Two editors have challenged your source as self-published, so it's not just me. Again, if it's as easy as you say it is, provide another source and let's see what happens. As to your Option 3: that would also be called edit-warring, something you've already been warned about. --McDoobAU93 04:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"There are many others like it, but you will discredit them as they are "self published", so what's the point." I have been following this article for a few years now and have noticed that the more information is posted, the more you and other mods want to remove it. Even when reference is given for the information. This is why Wikipedia sucks so bad. People can't get anything valuable from it because people like you keep removing it. I provided a resource. A reliable one that has been around for many years and has not changed. Any other resource I provide will be the exact same "self published" information. That is what the internet is. 100% self published. Wikipedia is "self published". Hell this article references a web forum (WDW MAGIC). How much more "self published" can you get? Oh well, this is beating a dead horse. You will never get it. Go ahead and fuck up the article. The people that actually know how to do research will go else where and actually get the facts they want. Everyone knows Wikipedia is an unreliable source. Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you haven't understood what self-published means in this context. At the same time, you continue to assume bad faith of other editors, especially editors who are trying to help you understand why the sources you have provided are not considered reliable. And you're right, Wikipedia isn't considered reliable, since it is an open wiki, and open wikis are not considered reliable (a perfect example of the transitive property). If you would read the sections that editors are presenting to you in good-faith, you might have read that. --McDoobAU93 04:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First, please comment on content, not contributors.

In other news, I spent a few hours today looking for reliable sources for the specifications section. I have put out some requests for a couple Popular Science articles that were published in the late 60's and there is a more recent Disney publication that appears to also have a history including specifications. The Disney publication would likely be a primary source, but for this type of information it would be fine. I don't know if I will get access to these archive documents so I can cite them, but those are the types of sources we are looking for.

As an example of why sourcing is critical, look at Mark IV monorail and then look at this article. Notice that the period of service is different between the articles, even though they both use this same unreliable source? That is because the source changed between when the information was added to the Mark IV article and today. We can't have sources that are unreliable.

The author of the source you have added may have access to some of the materials we could use as sources. It might be useful to contact him. This really is an encyclopedia, and it really does take research to verify the material in it. Even though many articles are not reliably sourced, that doesn't make it okay to just add to the problem. I have now spent many hours of my life learning about the WDW Monorail system and its history. I don't mind this, as one of the biggest reasons I volunteer as an editor here is to learn new things. However; please don't treat the work I and many others are doing lightly, we are all only looking to get verifiably accurate information assembled. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The key to using a primary source (using Disney as a source for a Disney-based article) appears to be if the information would be considered self-serving. For example, a Disney source saying that they operate X number of monorail trains and that they can carry X number of people per hour, in my opinion, would not be unreasonable. However, when we get into statements such as Disney saying something like "our monorails are the most traveled in the world," that would be promotional and self-serving, and thus inappropriate. --McDoobAU93 05:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for further clarifying WP:PRIMARY, and explaining clearly how it differs from WP:SPS. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Getting information like this directly from Disney is damn near impossible. The information that is out is from ex employees that have manuals and handbooks. They then make fan sites using that information. But no one wants to accept that because it is "self published", despite the fact that it came from a reliable source. No one will reference their manuals and hand books for fear of Disney. See, being knowledgeable of Disney the way I am I can tell you this. You, knowing nothing about the subject, only worrying about "wiki blah blah blah rules", wouldn't understand this. So it is pointless to even continue the discussion. Someone could write a book saying all monorails are made of cheese and you would allowed it because its a published book, ignoring that it is incorrect information. Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Your comment "Disney saying something like "our monorails are the most traveled in the world," that would be promotional and self-serving, and thus inappropriate." Would not be inappropriate as it is factual, expectantly when Disney has the data to prove it.

We now introduce another important concept, that of verifiability. Of these fan-sites you describe, ostensibly written by former Disney Cast Members who worked on the monorails (even some ex-pilots, possibly), we have no way of verifying if their statements are correct. We're taking their word that what they're saying is correct. That's not to say we think they're lying, but that we have no way of knowing if they're telling the whole truth (including information that may not show Disney in the most flattering light ... refer to this section).

It's also time to bring up one that you, unfortunately, continue to ignore, and that is to assume good faith. You continue to assume that editors are doing things for the wrong reasons. Neither I nor Tgeairn have said that you're trying to harm the encyclopedia; on the contrary, I believe you really want to help. The problem is a lack of understanding of some of Wikipedia's most basic tenets ... a problem that is very fixable. At the same time, we would like to think that we would be worthy of the same level of respect that we are extending to you. --McDoobAU93 04:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

But according to verifiability, if multiple sites state the same information, it is accepted. You keep referring to this site as an encyclopedia. It is not. Encyclopedias are accepted as resources in colleges and high schools. Wikipedia is not, because it is an editable source. The major problem with Wikipedia's most basic tenets is that Wikipedia has not interest in truth and facts. They only care about how many web sites they can link to. Wikipedia is nothing more then a web ring. As I said above, You can reference 500 pages all with the same info, But because it was "self published" it's not reliable. But if some news paper site published something, even if it is wrong information, it is accepted on here as fact. Wikipedia has it's priorities out of place. No matter. You're going to do what you want to this article nothing I can do to change or fix it. I am just the little guy that has the correct information. You are the big bad moderator that has the power. So be it. Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where you got this idea that I was a "moderator" or admin, but ultimately it's not important, because admins are just editors, no different than you or me. As to whether or not the information you're defending is indeed "correct", let's look at WP:CIRCULAR. If one fan site posts something they believe is accurate, and another site references that information, and so on and so on, you run into a problem if nobody has bothered to ask Site #1 "hey, where did you get that from?". Site #1 can easily say, "I heard it from a pilot when I visited WDW last month", and for fan sites that's probably okay. For encyclopedia projects such as Wikipedia, that's not okay, because we were not there when said conversation took place (that's verifiability). Reporters, be it print media or TV or Internet, take notes and record interviews for the purpose of double-checking their own work and backing up their reporting.

Now, as to the continued assumption of bad-faith on your part (statements like "the big bad moderator that has the power"). If Wikipedia has its "priorities out of place", and if "people that actually know how to do research will go else where and actually get the facts they want" (something Alexa would question), and if there truly is "nothing I can do to change or fix it", why are you still "beating the dead horse"? Personally I hope you stay, but I admit I can't force you to read the policy sections I provide to you. --McDoobAU93 18:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

sigh "Lets look at [wiki rule this] and [wiki rule that]". Why do you keep spewing these links after I already said Wikipedia has its priorities out of place. The majority of their rules are in place to provide moderators a fall back when they go on their power trips.

You say: "If one fan site posts something they believe is accurate, and another site references that information, and so on and so on, you run into a problem if nobody has bothered to ask Site #1 "hey, where did you get that from?". This may be true. But this is hardly ever the case. I have been in the Disney fan community for 25 years. I had family retire from the park. I grew up there. I can tell you without a doubt how the community works. If a Disney fan reads site A they will always go check site B and C to verify. The key to this is that site B and C are not just a fan built web site, but a forum. These forum consist of fans and employees. People that KNOW the information and can confirm or deny. If a sight is deemed inaccurate, it rarely last long on the web. The site I referenced has been up and running for a long time and has been backed by many forums. Again, as I said, You, knowing nothing about the subject, only worrying about "wiki blah blah blah rules", wouldn't understand this. Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

And the bad-faith assumptions just keep on coming ("knowing nothing about the subject", which is a borderline personal attack, but I'll let it go). Your statements sound lovely, but I have no way to verify them. Also, just like self-published sites, web forums are not acceptable as sources for edits for exactly the same reason: lack of verifiability. --McDoobAU93 02:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

"("knowing nothing about the subject", which is a borderline personal attack...)" And THAT is why I think you are a moderator. That attitude.

"And the bad-faith assumptions just keep on coming ("knowing nothing about the subject..." Your comments and actions on this talk page and this article led to my assumption, and I would stand to bet it is accurate.

"Also, just like self-published sites, web forums are not acceptable as sources for edits for exactly the same reason" Yet this very article sources a web forum. Interesting. Even more interesting is web forums are some of the most reliable references on the web, for the very reason I mentioned.

Sounds like your case has no foundation other then "Wiki rule this" and "Wiki rule that".

This conversation is going nowhere and is now over. I only hope people will be wise enough to not use Wikipedia strictly as their source. Take care. Crazy Blue Eyes (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If you deem it over, that's fine by me. I'll go with Tgeairn's tag in place of mine, to request a better source than the self-published one. And I hope NOBODY uses Wikipedia strictly as a source ... I know I don't. I look at where the info came from, as well, before making a judgement about its accuracy. --McDoobAU93 05:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I have just struck comments made by an indefinitely-blocked user who was using sockpuppetry to evade his block. --McDoobAU93 18:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Moving block system?

The block system that keeps the distance between the trains is described two times in this article. One time it is linked to cab signalling and one time it's linked to moving block. For what I understand it is not a moving block system since it has pre defined hold points (mentioned two times in this article). If no one opposes I will delete the link to moving block and replace it with cab signalling. Since this is the first time it is mentioned and the other one is following, should I delete the link to cab signalling for the second explanation? --MrEnglish (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Speculation on Mark VIII

The Interwebs have been atwitter with a Disney Legend, Bob Gurr, stating that Walt Disney World is on the verge of upgrading the WDW monorail fleet, presumably to Mark VIII. While this is indeed great potential news, it's also not official, and the only source provided recently is a fan-site. As such, we don't have anything reliable to go on yet. Hopefully that will happen soon. Has anyone seen anything in the Orlando Sentinel or other reliable source? --McDoobAU93 11:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Mark VI refurbishment

https://wdwnt.com/2019/06/photos-monorail-silver-returns-with-a-new-look-as-walt-disney-world-repairs-existing-fleet/

Monorail Silver first to get updated look with new color coded interior. Should be something to keep an eye on.

(Personally, I kinda like the black delta on outside)Metropod (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)