Talk:Walt Disney World Monorail System/Archive 3

Around the World

I think the statement about how "the monorail has traveled the equivalent distance of twenty-one trips around the world" may be inaccurate or out of date. The mean circumference of Earth is about 40,075 km or 24,900 miles. 21 times that is 522900 miles. As the system has been operating essentially every day since October 1971 it would only have had to have logged about 40 miles a day to be at 522900 miles. I actually can't find a citation for the length of the any of the monorail tracks, but I imagine that three or four round trips on the EPCOT loop would cover 40 miles by about 8 a.m. each morning. This unofficial Disney trivia site states that the system had logged ten million miles by 1989. I know that Walt Disney had the evil gene and all that, but I'm a geek for Disney trivia and behind the scenes stuff. PurpleChez 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a good (albeit admittedly geeky ;) point. I have tagged the statement.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

SVG

Stop replacing my image with this SVG crap. every image in this article is jpg so don't hand me that "It's preferred" crap. if it was such a big deal every image would be converted. HeadMouse 21:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

SVG is an image format used mainly for drawings and diagrams, where instead of telling the computer what pixels go where, you actually tell the computer how to draw the image. It's much smaller than JPEG, which was originally intended only for photographs. Photographs can't be converted to SVG, but the track route diagram could be, for example. We always use SVG images where possible; they look identical, and one is a smaller file, so what's the trouble? ➪HiDrNick! 21:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

the problem is when you change the image it removes it from my contributions list. and then the image eventually becomes tagged for deletion. I did not create the image to have it changed, re=hosted and my original deleted. HeadMouse 02:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Guest relations"

The correct capitalization for the section is "Guest relations", per the Wikipedia Manual of Style. If that section talked about the Guest Relations department at WDW, then both words would be correctly capitalized. This is not the case, though, as the section is talking about how the monorail cast members relate to the guests at their attraction. Guest Relations Cast Members would only involve themselves in the operation of the monorail to assist in emergencies, certainly not on a day-to-day basis. I hope this helps. ➪HiDrNick! 21:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the archives. The correct spelling of this title for Disney Company is with a capital R. It was agreed upon already to leave it caps. HeadMouse 02:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you show us where in the archives that was decided upon? Because I tend to agree with HiDrNick's point. It's not used as the department in this sense...it's used as a general term for relations with guests. It's not "The Walt Disney World Guest Relations Department" which would require the capitalized R. Metros 02:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it can always be changed back to "Rider Tips" which makes better sense. HeadMouse 13:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Even though we told you 36 times that changing it to "Rider Tips" is inappropriate because this isn't a travel guide? It should stay as Guest relations because this is about the general term...not about the specific department at Disney. Metros 19:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

To re-iterate what Metros said, the section cannot be called "Rider Tips" as that would violate Wikipedia's official policy on WP:NOT#GUIDE. Likewise, it cannot be titled "Guest Relations" because the WP:MOSHEAD guideline states that only the first lettre of a heading is capitalized. Additionally your claim of "read the archives" is disingenuous at best as you are the lone dissenter to consensus. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If it can't be caps then it needs to be re titled. Rider Tips is more appropriate but no, this is not a travel agency, so the next best thing is Guest Relations. Since that is not working maybe it should be "Helpful tips" HeadMouse 21:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

HeadMouse, refrain from any further violations of WP:MOS. You have been warned over and over again about this. --Yamla 21:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yamla, learn how to be more understanding. Gees you could have simply fixed the mistake and THEN if I capt it again you could say I was in violation. but since it was a whole new title it was a simple mistake. see the comment above it's lower case "t" for tips. HeadMouse 21:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

HeadMouse, you have a long history of violating WP:MOS (and WP:OWN) after being told repeatedly about the policies or guidelines in question. --Yamla 21:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

WTF??? I am trying to find a way to correct your so-called problem. You don't want to capitalize a word that should be, and you don't want to use any other forms of titles. I mean damn. why don't you just remove the entire article. and again I DO NOT CLAIM TO OWN THIS ARTICLE,I DO NOT CLAIM TO OWN THIS ARTICLE,I DO NOT CLAIM TO OWN THIS ARTICLE,I DO NOT CLAIM TO OWN THIS ARTICLE. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!!!!! Yamla You have along history of harassing me and undoing every little thing I do.HeadMouse 01:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

HeadMouse, take a look at WP:CIVIL for a bit, thanks. Also, your claim is wrong, the word should not be capitalized. You have been told this many times and have no proof from this "archive" that you keep claiming. If we were talking about the department, it would be Guest Relations. But we're not. We're talking about general guest relations. We could easily change that term to customer service. Because of this, only the first letter of the first word needs to be capitalized in Wikipedia headers. Metros 01:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so now we can't call facts facts. How about "tidbits"?HeadMouse 01:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Metros

So please oh mighty one tell me what you wish it to say? Since you think everything is a POV or not a fact then what wording may we use master of the undo button. HeadMouse 02:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Master of the undo button? Which one of us has been blocked for WP:3RR violations before? And yes, I just noticed that I have technically broken 3RR, but I pledge to not revert again for the 24 hour period. I did not recall the revert that I did at 19:07 on October 5. I apologize, Metros 02:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You have undid EVERY thing I have done. HeadMouse 02:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

JESUS CHRIST> I GIVE UP YOU PEOPLE NEED TO GET A DAMN HOBBY INSTEAD OF COMING IN HERE HARASSING PEOPLE TRYING TO SHARE INFORMATION. TIDBITS IS A REAL WORD, CAN'T SAY FACTS, CAN'T SAY INTERESTING, WHAT THE HELL CAN WE SAY? YOU DON'T WANT TO CALL IT WAHT IT REALLY IS Guest Relations, SO PLEASE INFORM US THAT ARE NOT HIGHT ON POWER TRIPS OF WHAT WORDS YOU WANT TO SEE USED!!!!HeadMouse 02:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to help, I recommend the following:

1. Follow the rules like everyone else.
2. Stop acting like you are the arbiter of does and does not go into this article.

WikiPedia's success is due to editors working together collaboratively. I hope that you decide to work with us toward our common goal of building the best encyclopedia.--Kralizec! (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

How about "Misc facts" HeadMouse 02:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I may as well weigh in on this....I just read what headMouse had to say....I simpithize with him(or her)....I, too have had frustrating expiences with the higher ups.....Look at headMouses energy.....Don't frustrate that resource....I'll be checking back....and don't be so smug.69.122.62.231 (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

# 4.4 Severe weather

Sources will be posted again soon, they were posted once before (or should have been) Please hold for that before deleting again. HeadMouse 02:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Add it back when there are sources. But as for now, you just violated 3RR for sure for that revert. I suggest you revert yourself or you will have to be reported. Metros 02:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a min. chill out. 1) I have not violated the 3RR rule. I did not revert the exact same thing 3 tiles. this is a totally different edit. 2) I did not revert the title back to it's previous way, YOU DID, I made DIFFERENT attempts each time. 3) I asked you to be patient. the citations are there they just need to be put in WP format to please the gods. HeadMouse 02:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:3RR carefully. A revert is an undoing of an edit in any way. So when I changed the title to "Guest relations" and you changed it to "Interesting facts" that's a revert because you undid the action I did. A revert is not necessarily repeating the exact edit each revert. So, please, revert yourself or you will be reported. Metros 02:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

So your saying if one person makes more then 3 edits of any kind to an article its a violation? HeadMouse

no, it's the undoing the actions of others part that needs to be considered. Metros 02:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. you'll find any thing to try and harass me about. so I removed it hope your happy, anything else you want removed? How about the entire article? Or maybe we can just put a dancing clown instead for entertainment since you really don't care about the articles information at all, just so long as it pleases you. HeadMouse 02:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, while you're at it, you could actually read policies and guidelines rather than acting uncivil or engaging in revert warring. Metros 02:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

While your at it you could stop looking for stupid crap to gripe about. I made your changes now get off my back. HeadMouse 02:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I frankly don't know why I'm wading into this, but if it calms the situation down, so much the better. I added this section originally, when I first started on Wikipedia. In retrospect, the addition should have been left out since it might be considered original research. It was based on an observation of operations on July 23, 1994, when a very severe storm crossed over the northern part of the resort complex, over Bay Lake and the Seven Seas Lagoon. The rain was coming down at a tropical-storm like rate, so much that visibility across Bay Lake was reduced (but not eliminated). I was in the Contemporary Resort at the time having dinner, and was waiting to head back to the Magic Kingdom for the evening. The cast members at the hotel's boarding platform said the monorails were shut down until the weather cleared, and there was a train sitting on the beam between the Grand Floridian and the Magic Kingdom. Eventually the rain cleared and I went ahead and walked over to the park.

Is this original research? Perhaps. But from what I recall, interviews can be cited, and it was a Disney cast member that said the service was suspended and due to the weather. So I put it to the editors to decide what to do. --McDoobAU93 02:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i have seen this happen (monorails stop for storms) and my wife was on a monorail when they stopped it due to heavy rain and wind. From CM's i have talked to, the worry is trees or other things falling on the beamway and derailing a monorail.. but i don't have any sources other than my word. --Napnet 06:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Known for" line

The reason the "known for" part needs a citation because the question "well who knows it for that?" needs to be answered. It is not enough to say that people know it for that without actually showing that proof through sources. Metros 02:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

So it's not the "around the word" so-called fact? HeadMouse 02:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

no, the citation needed reflects that entire line about "known for". Metros 02:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed until it can be reworded or cited. HeadMouse 02:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Gone to hell again

Agreed "These bus bars are similar to the electrified or "third" rail of a subway train and they are incredibly dangerous." WTF? How are they incredibly dangerous? Are they radioactive? Can they suddenly explode into shards of glowing hot metal? Do they fall off the beams hitting people's head below? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.30.94 (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow this article has gone to hell again. Seems like when someone tires to educate others they get people trying to stop them. First it was Trey, now he's gone, although I think he was reincarnated as Metro, seems to have the same style of harassment. Oh well, when your all done screwing this article up. I'll come back to fix it again.HeadMouse 02:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet, each instance of this "issue" that you have with the article centers around your actions. Why is that? Do you think that eventually you'll catch on to the fact that there are all these issues because you don't want to work with people or listen to advice or follow guidelines and policies? Metros 02:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

HeadMouse has now been blocked for six months for repeated edit-warring, incivility, unwillingness to work with other editors, and severe WP:OWN issues. If this editor continues to edit this article while blocked, please report the violation of WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK to me. Hopefully this time will give HeadMouse a chance to become familiar with our policies and guidelines and he or she can return and become a productive editor. --Yamla 17:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like HeadMouse didnt cool down when I was gone. 6 Month block well deserved for his actions. —trey^{omg he's back} 21:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ridership Numbers

No way is it 150000 a day...42.8 million people visit all four Disney World parks each year. That comes to an average of 117,260 visitors a day. Not only is that not 150000, they don't all ride the monorail. Perhaps is it off by a factor of ten? Pentau ^Talk 04:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this number includes repeat riders. As most people ride to monorail twice in a day (once to the park, and once to the parking lot), this knocks the number of individual persons riding the monorail to 75,000 - which seems more realistic. Deserves to be checked though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.237.198 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 24 November 2007

why does this article have both words capitalized? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.62.231 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 14 December 2007