Talk:Walt Disney World Monorail System

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Recent accident information removed

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Rather than continue to edit war over the lines in question, I added  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:   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)

text:  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)
thread_title: Recent monorail edits disputed

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

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Narration section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Agreed.  — Kralizec! (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Route Diagram 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Identification 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Front cab riding section 

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

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Typical running schedule 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hatnote 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Clean up? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  MAPO 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Moving block system? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Speculation on Mark VIII 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mark VI refurbishment