Talk:Mark VI monorail/Archive 1

Not sure how to put source information without making it an outside link? HeadMouse 12:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse


 * Not sure what you're asking. You can put the outside link here. What you can't do, is copy and paste the content from the outside link onto Wikipedia. Pan Dan 12:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

IT'S MY CONTENT. Not someone else's It's from MY PAGE.If I can't put the information on here, then what's the point of wikipedia?I am not going to source on a wikipage that;s posting incorrect information. HeadMouse 12:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)HeadmMouse
 * Generally speaking original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. Only verifiable information from reliable, published sources should be included.  --Kralizec! (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So how do I let you [Wikipedia] know what these sources are? HeadMouse 12:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse
 * See WP:REF for the style guide that describes how to write citations, WP:FOOT for a how-to guideline for using footnotes, and WP:CITET for the templates used to cite books, encyclopedias, journals, theses, papers, websites, etc. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Also How do I edit incorrect information on a page without being looked at as vandalism? HeadMouse 13:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse
 * Easy! First use a preview to double-check how your change looks, and always use an edit summary. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What is everyones problem today? I try to correct incorrect information and add lots more and make it look presentable and all I get is people coming behind me and changing everything. HeadMouse 20:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse


 * If you are not familiar with Wikipedia's official policy on ownership of articles, you should probably read it now. Among other things, it indicates "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." --Kralizec! (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

THE "information" LOOKS BETTER AND IS EASIER TO READ IN TABLE FORMAT HeadMouse 21:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse


 * Your changes to the page (removing my fixes to spelling mistakes, removing the article from all categories, replacing the information list with a bloated HTML table, etc.) neither conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style nor look like anything else in WikiProject Trains. Until this article meets Wikipedia's format and style guidelines, virtually every editor who stumbles across it will apply the same or similar changes as I have made.  --Kralizec! (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe the Wikipedia provided table will make it easier for readers. Sorry Kralizec! for not grasping what you were talking about with the table. HeadMouse 11:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse


 * Much easier. Thanks!  --Kralizec! (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why this useless information keeps getting put on here. Readers don't care about any of this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HeadMouse (talk • contribs) 07:03, 6 May 2007  (UTC)


 * While I do not make the rules, I do encourage others to follow them. However, as the saying goes, when in Rome ...  --Kralizec! (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

HEY Kralizec! Since your so good at this stuff. How about I put the information on here, and you make it "wikipedia" worthy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HeadMouse (talk • contribs) 07:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offer, however I am afraid I will have to decline as I am involved in several projects of my own (User:Kralizec!). If you have questions or need assistance on train-related topics, you could check with the members of WikiProject Trains, or if on a Disney topic, with WikiProject Disney.  For help on creating new articles, you may wish to read Your first article and Contributing to Wikipedia.  Good luck!  --Kralizec! (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have questions on the information, (I'm prob the biggest Disney guru there is) just on how to post it to meet the Wiki standards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HeadMouse (talk • contribs) 07:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments
This page needs a new review for "class" and "Importance" rating. HeadMouse 11:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse
 * I bumped it up to B-class, but the importance is not going to change, no matter how good the article gets. I am impressed by this article, and am thinking about nominating it for good article status.--MrFishGo Fish 12:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thought, no--there is a lot of holes. The article is predominately technical, and there's a lot more to monorails than just technical specifications.  I understand the reasoning behind removing the listed Disney fleet, but if we could get a Las Vegas fleet list, that should go back up.--MrFishGo Fish 13:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well this article isn't about one fleet or another. It's about the model of train, that's why it's mostly technical information. HeadMouse 17:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse
 * Here's what I mean. This article is a good article about a locomotive model, and it has its share of technical information, but it also talks about individual locomotives.--MrFishGo Fish 13:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Photo Error
The photo in this article shows a Mark IV Monorail Train. NOT A Mark VI Train. Can someone correct this photo please? Wslupecki 21:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

Your right. It's been fixed now. Thanks. HeadMouse 01:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

Wordwrap around images
What is with the major bias against word-wrapping images? (ie: making it so the images flow inline with the text, as opposed to being set apart with massive whitespace beside them)? Doesn't it look a lot better if the image is PART of the section of text, as opposed to being seperated like that? --Maelwys 15:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Depends on the image and text.HeadMouse 16:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would it depend on that? If things look better with the image inline, it should always look better with the image inline. What is your specific complaint about this particular instance, aside from the fact that I'm the one that suggested it (which your edit summary seems to imply is the only reason). --Maelwys 16:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardless of subjective opinions, Manual of Style states that "right-alignment is preferred to left- or center-alignment." As such, I have re-right justified the image in question.  --Kralizec! (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And I have put it back to the left where it flows nicely with the text. If wikipedai didnt want a left alignment, then they need to remove the option. HeadMouse 00:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1/ You're not using left alignment, that would at least allow the text to be beside the image. Instead you've just got the image sitting above the text, seperate from it, with no flow whatsoever. And 2/ There is no rule against using left alignment, just against using it directly under a title like that. They didn't remove the option because it's still an option to use it further down the article, just not where you've got it right now. What do you have against the formatting so strongly, besides the people who're trying to do it? --Maelwys 01:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Did you even read the Manual of Style link I gave? If you had, you would know why left alignment exists: "when using multiple images in the same article, they can be staggered right-and-left."  A good example of this in practice is Kakadu National Park, where images are thumb sized and alternate between left and right justified.  --Kralizec! (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)