This template is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park articles
Why was there a steam train transfer at the Maintenance shed? Yes, both systems run into the same building, but it's not an actual transfer. The public is not allowed to ride to that area on either system and I'm pretty sure that no cast member is switching between the two. I believe it is important to have the shed itself on there, but the transfer seems silly. Elisfkc (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The steam train transfer occurs via the Magic Kingdom Station, not the maintenance shed, hence why the steam train icon is hovering directly above that station's icon. The hub icons are simply meant to indicate that the facilities for the steam train and monorail are in the same building. It is already implied that a transfer at the shed is not possible, given the light blue color of the line leading into it, which for this map represents a segment where passengers do not travel. Also, it is possible for the general public to reach the maintenance shed on the steam train side, through the Magic Behind Our Steam Trains Tour held once each morning (see: Walt Disney World Railroad). Jackdude101 (Talk) 14:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, but the template shows it as a transfer at the maintenance shed. Also, the transfer at the Magic Kingdom should not be labelled, considering the fact that you need to get have a park ticket in order to make this "transfer". Using the logic that this should be there, then the EPCOT World Showcase boats should be listed as a transfer from EPCOT, and all of the stations with buses available should also be listed. Elisfkc (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Slightly off topic, but I think the ferry information should be removed, when I put it there, I didn't realize it went to all of the monorail serviced hotels. I also think the MK loop should be dual tracked so we can get rid of the key at the bottom. j.reed (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@J.reed: Explain the reasoning behind removing the continuation lines on the Epcot line, besides the goal of keeping the route diagram as condensed as humanly possible. Without them, the route diagram implies to the average reader not familiar with route diagrams that the distance between the TTC and the Contemporary and the distance between the TTC and Epcot are similar. This is of course not the case, as the distance from the TTC to Epcot is around four times the distance from the TTC to the Contemporary. The continuation lines were meant to highlight that fact.
Jackdude101 (Talk) 03:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Route diagrams are not to scale. Interruptions are to indicate when part of a route is missing because the template needs space elsewhere to put other parts on the line or when you are using an expandable section. j.reed (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[Useddenim:] Please review the talk pages. There is no reason to present scale in a RDT. For example, only 1.5km is between the TTC and Grand Floridian, with the remaining 3km being the rest of the track. That same space takes up half of the RDT. If the intention is to show distance, there is a field in the template to add distance markers. j.reed (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@J.reed: I did. And even though RDTs are not necessarily to scale, they should show details in proper relation to each other. One extra row is not going to totally destroy the diagram, and the consensus (Jackdude101 and I) seems to be that the extra distance should be shown. Are you going to proceed to editwar this? Useddenim (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, they should not. They should only show major features of the route such as stations and junctions, scale is added via distance markers. j.reed (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@J.reed: In addition to myself and Useddenim, I believe Cards84664 is also in favor of keeping the continuation lines in this RDT, as he added them back on a separate occasion after reading my comment on its talk page. If this is the case, that's three against one. As I indicated in my comment, scale should be indicated with this RDT. That's because this specific rail line overlaps two primary topics on Wikipedia: rail transport and amusement parks. While the people interested in the former may be at least somewhat familiar with RDTs, the people interested in the latter may not be familiar with RDTs, and interpret the shortened distance implied by the lack of continuation lines as an error. That means that you are going to have numerous instances far into the future where amateur editors inexperienced with editing RDTs try to "correct" this error, and may mistakenly cause actual errors in the process. Noting scale is obviously not the norm with most RDTs, but I believe that this one, and the RDTs for other amusement park rail systems, are the exception to the rule. Jackdude101 (Talk) 02:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As someone new to this discussion and not all that familiar with route map templates (but extremely familiar with Disney), I do not quite understand why distance would need to be shown. When I have seen other transportation systems on Wikipedia, I have never inferred distance based on a route map. The only thing I see that is an issue at the moment is that there is a little bit of an offset in the lines horizontally between TTC and Polynesians' texts. Elisfkc (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The offset you are seeing is an optical illusion. If you measure the number of pixels from the bottom of the TTC text line (where the lower-case p ends) to the top of the Polynesian text line (where the upper-case P begins), it's the same distance as the spaces between all of the other lines of text. Jackdude101 (Talk) 13:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, it looks like it is an issue with the base template. I zoomed in and found other lines that also broke, but became fixed when zoomed in further. So, not an issue really. Elisfkc (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would think it would be a compromise to place the continuation lines on the same line as the Polynesian. This will result in adding the continuation lines you believe indicates scale while not adding useless whitespace to the template. j.reed (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm okay with that. How does everyone else feel about it? Jackdude101 (Talk) 20:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Useddenim: Yes, but the WDW Monorail template is not going to align properly whether it has eleven rows like it has now, or twelve rows like it had before the continuation lines were removed. This is because of that colspan parameter creating the dividing line between the route diagram and the legend below it. It creates about one half of one row. Also, the Main Street, U.S.A. Vehicles template is taller due to its header, which has two lines of text instead of one. If you measure the height sans the header, it's fine. In short, they're not 100% the same height, but they're close enough. Jackdude101 (Talk) 00:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm good with either the current look or the previous one. Elisfkc (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(