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 Community Tech bot (talk | contribs) at 17:36, 5 October 2018 (Files used on this page are up for deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleDisneyland Railroad is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 7, 2017.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 19, 2017Good article nomineeListed
July 8, 2017Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 17, 2017.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that several freight cars of the Disneyland Railroad (locomotive pictured) originally had no seats because Walt Disney wanted passengers to feel like cattle riding in a real cattle train?
Current status: Featured article


Proposed merge with Primeval World

Primeval World was merged into Disneyland Railroad on 16 October 2013‎. North America1000 09:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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]

News butcher?

"The combine car from the Disneyland Railroad's former Retlaw 1 passenger train, one of the DRR's two original train sets, was Walt Disney's favorite train car on the railroad, as it brought back memories from his youth working as a news butcher on the Missouri Pacific Railway."

What does "news butcher" mean? If it's a real term and not vandalism it should be explained.--agr (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)  Done[reply]

@ArnoldReinhold: Yes, "news butcher" is a real term. It was a job that involved selling newspapers, candy, cigars, and other products to passengers onboard trains. It was actually a pretty common job for young boys a century ago. Thomas Edison was a news butcher when he was a kid, also, but he lost that job after he set a combine car on fire due to white phosphorus igniting in a chemistry set he had onboard. The term is not used in modern times, which explains why there is no Wikipedia article about it. This same issue came up during its featured article review and was removed elsewhere in the article as a result, but it looks like we overlooked this mention of it. I just corrected that in the article. Jackdude101 talk cont 14:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackdude101: Thanks for the info. I'd be inclined to add a section to Newspaper hawker on the railroad jobs, with a redirect from News butcher, and put the term back. Do you have any good sources?--agr (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ArnoldReinhold: Yes, two of the books used as sources in the article mention the term and describe it in detail, including the Edison bit I mentioned above. Jackdude101 talk cont 15:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackdude101: I see the Broggie (2014) p.36 reference, what is the other book ref? If I add something to the Newspaper hawker could you check that the references support what I wrote? I'm thinking about adapting the words you used above, something like "It was also common in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries for young boys to work as "news butchers", selling newspapers, candy, cigars, and other products to passengers onboard trains. Thomas Edison was a news butcher in his youth, also, but he lost that job after he set a combine car on fire due to white phosphorus igniting in a chemistry set he had onboard. Walt Disney worked as news butcher on the Missouri Pacific Railway as a teenager, and his memories of that experience influenced his design of the Disneyland Railroad." --agr (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ArnoldReinhold: The other source is the Amendola (2015) book. It was not used to reference the term in the article, but that's the one where the Edison info is located. I can get the related page numbers for you and review things later today. Jackdude101 talk cont 15:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks.--agr (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ArnoldReinhold: Most of the news butcher info in the Broggie book is from pages 35 to 40 (the mention about the combine coach being Disney's favorite and how it reminded him of his youth is on page 222); the Edison info in the Amendola book is on page 22. Also, FYI, the "It was also common in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries" info is implied by the source material, but it doesn't state it outright. Jackdude101 talk cont 23:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackdude101: I've made the additions to the Newspaper hawker article and News butcher is now live. Thanks for all your help. Do you want to add the link back to this article in its original location?--agr (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ArnoldReinhold: I added the link to the article where the term was originally mentioned in the first paragraph after the lead section, and I added the term back to the Train cars section. I also added it to the Carolwood Pacific Railroad article, which has a lot of similar info. Jackdude101 talk cont 11:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I think we are done. Thanks again for your help in rescuing a tiny bit of history.--agr (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masons

The two 2-4-4 locomotives are no Masons. Masons have the distinctive feature of having the driving wheels mounted on a bogie (Mason Bogie), so they are articulated locomotives. This is not the case with No. 3 and No. 5. --93.104.122.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)  Done[reply]

You are correct and this has been fixed. Per the Whyte notation article, this is known as a Boston-type wheel arrangement. Jackdude101 talk cont 20:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disneyland_Railroad&oldid=862636661"