Jump to content

Talk:Disneyland Railroad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jackdude101 (talk | contribs) at 05:29, 12 February 2017 (Los Angeles WikiProject tag added.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposed merge with Primeval World

Article is unsourced, and a large portion of it violates WP:NOT. What little salvageable content there is should be merged with Disneyland Railroad and Western River Railroad pbp 18:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll believe that when I see it. The onus is on you to find them; until you do, it fails GNG. And my comment about large portions of the article violating WP:NOT stands. Furthermore, failing GNG or not is irrelevant to a merge; articles that pass the GNG are not immune to merger pbp 23:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is not notable enough to stand on its own, however could be merged into Disney Railroad if we could find some sources, if any. Zach Vega (talk to me) 00:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopened discussion it's not really appropriate for the person making the proposal to decide consensus. As far as sources are concerned I have found several. I just haven't had computer time to transfer them into the article. Will do so this weekend if the family doesn't dominate my computer. JOJ Hutton 19:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the discussion has gone a week, and a majority of editors agree that, even if sources are added, the content should still be merged. As such, it was perfectly acceptable to be closed by anyone. You are alone in believing that, sources or no, it deserves its own article, and if you want to add sources, they'll have to be added here, because Primeval World is not going to be kept as an article. Please stop the disruptive stonewalling pbp 19:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lilly Belle tours restriction

I was told the new restrictions are to help preserve the carpet which is all that is left from Walt's apartment. It'll wear out anyway, but not as soon. Eeekster (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attraction or Railroad infobox

Should there be an attraction or railroad infobox? The WDW Railroad has an attraction infobox. Hawkeye75 (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally, the Disneyland Railroad is both a railroad and an attraction. Serious rail enthusiasts would probably see it first and foremost as a railroad, but I believe that a general audience would see it as an attraction. I would argue that an attraction infobox would be most appropriate. And like many of the other Disney railroad attractions, the railroad-specific attributes such as track length and guage, can be provided via custom values in the infobox.Scott Roy Atwood (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The Railroad is an attraction in a theme park. Hawkeye75 (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE is not, on its own, a valid argument. To a 'general audience', it does not make a difference, as readers do not see the infobox name when viewing Wikipedia. Conversely, attraction-specific attributes can be provided via custom values in the railroad infobox. I see no reason to change the article as it stands. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 19:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC
The rail infobox does not have custom values in its syntax. Hawkeye75 (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a railroad, the Disneyland railroad is an extremely atypical example, as it doesn't really move goods or passengers around, except within the quite confined borders of the Disneyland theme park. As an attraction, it is quite typical, and the general audience is more likely to categorize it along with Big Thunder Mountain rather than Burlington Northern. Far more of the attraction infobox parameters are salient than rail infobox parameters. I would strongly support using the attraction Infobox rather than the rail infobox, and incorporate rail infobox specific parameters such as gauge and length as custom parameters. Scott Roy Atwood (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Disneyland Railroad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

whistles

Should the information regarding the whistles be kept or removed (in part or in whole if that is the case)? Because when I look at it, I feel that at least 1 point is more of an opinion than it is fact. Specifically, the point about fred gurley's whistle shrieking. Wouldn't some people consider it something other than a shriek? Plus NONE of the information stated there is cited so it's hard to tell whether or not the info given is accurate. Anybody could claim that the ward Kimball's whistle is a Crosby 3 chime when it is in fact a different whistle like a lunkenheimer 3 chime.71.201.71.151 (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The number one consideration when determining whether content in an article should be removed is whether it has a healthy amount of inline citations backing it up, and the section on whistles has none. In my opinion, it should be removed along with all of the other long-winded and unreferenced sections of the article. Having this much unimportant information about a subject is akin to an article about a famous novel having the entire text of the novel included in it. Highlighting every nitty-gritty detail and sub-topic about the subject is not how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written and if we want the Disneyland Railroad article to eventually be returned to Good Article status, the editors who added this unnecessary content need to accept that fact. Jackdude101 (Talk) 04:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]