Trains: Rapid transit / Monorail Start‑class Low‑importance

Trains Portal This article 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit. This article is supported by the Monorail task force.

Archives

/Archive 1

Anyone else uncomfortable lumping Mark VI and M-VI trains together as is currently done here? M-VI trains are a derivative of the Mark VI trains, but they are not the same trains. M-VI are driverless, which seems to be a big difference. Roothog 22:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mark VI is the 'original' of that monorail train line (or whatever it is...) for WDW and the M-VI is the Bombardier (sorry if I mispelled it) spin-off for urban use. Yes, there are significant differences between the two. Besides the automation in the M-VI, the design and layout of the M-VI is significantly different from that of the original Mark VI and the number of cars are different as well. The Mark VI has six while the M-VI only has four. Wslupecki 00:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The article reads "The Mark VI monorail (or M-VI) is a monorail train used in the Walt Disney World Monorail System and the Las Vegas Monorail." so it is accurate. The Mark VI is at WDW and the M-VI is at Las Vegas. Both trains have similarities so both fit into this article. HeadMouse 01:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get the point. The problem I see here though is more emphasis on the WDW monorail train (Mark VI) and not enough info on the Las Vegas train (M-VI). Unfortunately, I don't know enough about either so I can't do much of anything about it. But It's just something to consider. Wslupecki 04:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

Depends on the image and text.HeadMouse 16:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Regardless of subjective opinions, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]