Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:18, 24 June 2006

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page. How about a nice cup of tea?

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

About archives

– March 2006 – April 18th 2006 – June 10th 2006

SEPARATE PAGE FOR DISCUSSION OF PRT IN GENERAL

Disingenuous??

JzG, you imply that I am being disingenuous. Once again, you assume bad faith on my part. I'm not surprised. Nothing's changed. I'm removing the link correctly this time, since we've already discussed this previously. Light Rail Now is already linked once and does not need another link. A Transportation Enthusiast 13:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the Cyberspace Dream article a "reliable source"?

The image of the simulated Raytheon guideway is from an article by an anonymous author on a competing technology's advocacy site. The article could have been written by anyone (like, perhaps, someone with financial interests in light rail companies). Furthermore it's been challenged by reputable sources, most predominantly J.E. Anderson, who is one of the foremost experts on PRT and a respected researcher.

As an unpublished article, it's not subject to peer review. As an anonymously authored article, the qualifications and/or motivations of its author are unknown. As a posting on a competing technology's advocacy site, it's has no more credibility than a promotional brochure. References to this article do not belong here. The image should not source this article and therefore the reference should either be removed or qualified by the fact that the article's contents have been contested (multiple times) by reputable professionals. A Transportation Enthusiast 15:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with removing it. Its definately a famous PRT bash (as far as fame for those go). I would definately support labeling it as a discredited report. But now that JzG is here, we'd better get like 3 or 4 more people to agree with us before drawing a consensus. Fresheneesz 10:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

My first choice is to include it and also include the rebuttal links. JzG nixed that months ago using the "one link per site, preferably at the root" rule. But now the Cyberspace Dream article is linked even though it's not at the root, and it's not a reliable source, and there's no indication of its dubious origin or contents. So something has to change. So if JzG allows us to include references from reputable sources that counter Cyberspace Dream..., then I have no problem referencing it, and indeed I prefer this approach (why suppress this debate?); otherwise it should be removed. A Transportation Enthusiast 13:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

JzG at it again

Here is the latest evidence that JzG is hostile to me and other perceived "proponents":

• I earlier removed a redundant link to the Light Rail Now site. In the process, I accidentally removed the LRN image. It was an honest mistake, caused by my unfamiliarity with the image and ref tags. JzG reverted with the comment Disingenuous edit summary, ATE. Accusations of disingenuous behavior! So much for ! But why would we expect an admin like him to follow official policy? He's a rogue cop who answers to no one.
• JzG then made some edits that made no sense. Example: consider the sentence "Prototypes and systems in current development are on a small scale, serving a small number of destinations from a larger number of embarkation points." This makes no sense. What is the difference between "destinations" and "embarkation points"? Every station in a PRT network is both destination and embarkation point, right? How could a prototype have more embarkation points than destinations? I fixed this, and also reworded some stuff and fixed one glaring error ("not free" vs "not impeded"). All good faith edits.
  
  But once again, soon after, JzG mass reverted all my changes, with no comment about the reverts. Not only that, his edit comment referred to another revert he made in the same edit while making no mention of my reverts! So JzG did the exact same thing I did earlier! He actually revert an entire section without mentioning it in the edit comments!
  
  Disingenuous edit summary? Only JzG can answer that. But, unlike JzG, I will assume good faith and chalk it up to a busy admin making an honest mistake. I will take the high ground, unlike JzG, who still treats me like I'm a common vandal. In any event, I've reverted JzG's reverts. JzG, I'd be happy to discuss your unexplained reverts here, so we can come to a compromise. I only wish this could happen before you trash all my edits, for the umpteenth time.

A Transportation Enthusiast 23:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure hes going to make some controversial edits. We need to hold fast and draw a consensus - thats it. With consensus, JzG can't make bogus edits. Fresheneesz 23:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

JzG reverted my edits again. His comment said "see talk", but the only comment here is about the "key concepts" section, which I didn't touch! He's reverting one thing and discussing something completely different! And this is the second time it's happened today. I've reverted again, because my edits are good -- in fact, I fixed a glaring error and corrected another statement that makes no sense (and yes, JzG continues to revert back to those errors without looking at what he's actually doing). A Transportation Enthusiast 00:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Key concepts

JzG deleted the new key concepts section. I didn't seen anything wrong with it, and I don't agree with JzGs edit comment about it. However, I haven't read the section and I think it deserves some discussion here, between JzG, whoever created the section, and anyone else interested. I'll contribute when I have time to read it. Fresheneesz 23:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do none of the protypes or runing systems exhibit these "key" concepts? Not that I'm surprised that hyperbole is creeping back in, it's normal in articles on political concepts, but there is no policy reason for allowing the asseriton that features no exhiobited by any real system are in some way inherent in systems which do not have them. Just zis Guy you know? 23:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a political concept. It's a transportation system. What the heck does politics have to do with technology? You're being obtuse. Furthermore, you once again reverted my edits, which I discussed above. What exactly is your problem, JzG?

I'm re-implementing my changes, because the article is incorrect as it reads right now. You keep referring to "key concepts", but you just reverted my edit again, and my edit does not contain the words "key" or "concepts". You are reverting blindly. AGAIN.

All: I'm thinking of asking for help here. JzG continues to assume bad faith and mass-revert our edits. He calls himself a rouge admin, but I think it's more like rogue. His actions continue to be terribly irresponsible for an admin. What do you all think?

A Transportation Enthusiast 23:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The "key concepts" section was well-written and accurate. It should be re-inserted into the article. JzG, ALL of the prototypes and running systems DO exhibit these "key concepts," including ULTra, which is fully funded for installation at Heathrow next year. Would you care to elaborate the ways in which ULTra does not demonstrate small vehicles, grade/right-of-way separation, off-line stations, point-to-point routing, et cetera? Because it does, as do all PRT concepts. Those ARE the key concepts, and they should be explained clearly as such. Skybum 00:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, I quite agree that JzG is continuing to act inappropriately as an admin. I fully support any external intervention that we wish to bring in. Skybum 00:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I've missed something, but I don't see any instance of JzG using his admin powers in this content dispute. Therefore you should probably stop flinging around accusations of admin abuse. -lethe 01:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to say that everyone should keep a cool head: please exhibit patience. If JzG is good at one thing, it is exhibiting patience. We will not get anywhere if we loose our cool (this means you ATE). JzG can vandalize all he wants, after all he is an admin. But we will keep him in check by being patient, and assuming good faith. Please take appropriate steps to correct errors and bad edits, but remember that if this comes down to a formal dispute, yelling and shouting will only reflect poorly on those that oppose JzG (ie all of us).

Also, I agree with Lethe. JzG has not (in a while) abused his administrator powers. Hes just abusing wikipedia. And so refrain from calling JzG names, and accusing him of too many things. Stick to the point, and please keep it cool. Fresheneesz 01:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Granted, he has not threatened to ban anyone or freeze the article in some time. It was a clear abuse of admin-ship when he did so previously, but now I guess it would be more appropriate to say that he is a problematic user. Skybum 01:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a list of JzG's transgressions:

• Threatens to lock down the page based on his own mis-reading of a single word in an edit by Skybum. He actually threatened to lock it twice, even though we all repeatedly asked him to re-read the word he mis-read.
• Repeated assumptions of bad faith on the part of Skybum, Fresheneesz, and me. One of his edit comments actually implied that Skybum's change was invalid because he was a perceived "proponent". Just today accused me of "a disingenuous edit comment" because I accidentally removed an extra line in an edit. I can provide more examples if you like.
• Many, many cases of mass reverts of good faith edits, when it's obvious he hasn't even reviewed the change. This happened again today -- twice! I fixed several errors in the article, and he reverted them en-masse. I re-inserted them, assuming he made a mistake, and he reverted again with a comment that had nothing to do with my change! He obviously didn't even read my edit or comment -- twice. I can provide more examples.

When an ordinary user commits these offenses, it's a small problem that can be corrected. When it's a respected admin, its a slightly larger problem. When it's a respected admin who refuses to read your edits or comments, it's a serious problem. When a respected admin who refuses to read your edits or comments and assumes bad faith, it's critical. When a respected admin who refuses to read your edits or comments and assumes bad faith and has threatened to lock down the page based on his own mis-readings, well then it's time to seek help from a higher authority.

I've repeatedly attempted to work with JzG on this page. He refuses to cooperate. And every time he misinterprets yet another good-faith edit, I wonder if he's going to lose his temper again and lock down the page. A Transportation Enthusiast 02:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverting is any editor's right, not just the admin's. However, I was unaware that he threatened to lock the page. That is solely the admin's right, so I withdraw my comment. -lethe 08:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I missed most of the contoversy about locking down the article, but my impression is that there was an edit war brewing between people who thought PRT was a good idea and people who didn't like it. JzG locked down the article while he was fixing up the most extreme unsupported and POV text, before unlocking it. JzG took many comments on board during the discussion. Now the main sceptic has left, JzG is trying to ensure a NPOV here. I'm sure he would welcome extra input from other experienced Wikipedians. Stephen B Streater 09:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There was never "extreme unsupported and POV text". Not much content was removed, JzG just reworded much of it and removed anything which he considered to be unsupported (even if there was support but it wasn't cited -- he didn't bother to ask, just wiped it clean). We all supported his work initially, because he truly is a gifted editor who can spot subtle POV and squash it. It was only later when we tried to reinsert some valid content that he had removed that he got hostile. And by the way, JzG never locked, he just threatened to lock. It was well after he'd completed his initial work on the article. There was no war at that point, except perhaps in Avidor's mind. The issue is not that he threatened to lock, but that he did so for no reason other than he assumed Skybum was acting in bad faith and he misread a single word. That's why we're so concerned now about his recent unexplained reverts of good edits - we can't get him to read our comments or this talk page, and yet he continues to revert our valid changes. At what point will his misunderstandings result in threats of bans and lockdowns? We're walking on eggshells here even as we make good, solid edits. A Transportation Enthusiast 13:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

On a very side note: I would appreciate anyone else just glancing over at UniModal, and checking the history. I can't handle JzG on my own. " This is a fantasy project, large articles on fantasy projects violate WP:NPOV"-JzG Fresheneesz 09:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I know absolutely nothing about personal transit devices, which is why I haven't said anything despite seeing this stuff on my watchlist for months, but JzG's argument seems reasonable to me. A device that's not yet in the planning stages probably shouldn't have its own article. Why not just give it a paragraph in the main article? -lethe 13:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

One reason is that JzG thinks PRT is a fantasy (a "Quixotic dream" in his words) so the article must not get too large. He purged a lot of the descriptions of and links to individual systems based on this view. A Transportation Enthusiast 13:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a reason not to give it a paragraph in a main article rather than its own article. Rather it sounds like a reason to do so. -lethe 13:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And that's why JzG also tried to delete the Skytran article - he views PRT as a fantasy. But it's his view that is not supported by the facts. PRT as a technology is very real (much engineering and research has been done, and there are fully functioning prototypes of some designs - it only lacks commercial application, which is pending). But JzG doesn't believe it will ever be built, so he truncates this article and deletes Skytran based on that belief. My view on Skytran is that it deserves a small article of its own, because the proposal has been around for quite a while and there are some novel design elements, and because this article is already a nice size and I'd prefer not to clutter it with descriptions of every system. A Transportation Enthusiast 13:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, theres a lot of people that think that small topics don't deserve their own articles. But I'm a little confused as to why some (JzG) are so adement about removing articles on small topics. Hes cited NPOV, but.. time and time again, I see nothing about the issue of making pages for small topics being against NPOV policy. Also, I do think that the small amount of information JzG has allowed on the UniModal page is just a bit too much to merge into this article. I'm fine with keeping the UniModal article small, but I know that if I came to wikipedia and searched for that article, I would expect/want more information. Fresheneesz 23:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm adamant on removing articles on topics which are insignificant, or whose significance is restricted to a small group aggressively pushing a point of view. Your ascribing of false motives aside, UniModal is the right size for the amount of verifiable, neutral information we have on it. If PRT as described in this article is so real, which city has a system I can travel on? Just zis Guy you know? 22:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Destinations" vs. "Embarkation points"

I think it's fair to note that the upcoming systesms will not be large-scale applications, at least initially. (Although I know that ULTra does have further plans for Heathrow and its environs, beyond what is currently funded). However the distinction between "a small number of destinations" and "a larger number of embarkation points" is inaccurate. PRT is a bi-directional system; all destinations are also embarkation points, and vice versa. Skybum 08:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me to say "small-scale" rather than "few destinations" or "few embarkation points". Fresheneesz 10:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

First, in my view, there is no reason why the statement about prototypes must be in that paragraph. I had moved it down below in a separate paragraph and reworded it, but JzG reverted 3 times now. Second: I agree about embarkation vs destination. I've made this point in my edit comment and here on the talk page above. JzG still insists on including that statement without explaining it. If someone else wants to revert it now, go ahead, but I've already reverted it twice and JzG refuses to leave it out. So if someone else wants to make the edit, I will support it, but I'm not going to risk a 3-revert ban. A Transportation Enthusiast 13:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think the prototypes thing is slightly misleading. It seems to instill the idea that these prototypes are actually *serving* people. When I don't think they are, are they? I thought they were just test sites. Fresheneesz 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Proto means "first" or "first formed." I can see how you might think this means "first system serving the public," but I don't think that applies here. The article makes it clear there is not yet a PRT system in operation, aside from Morgantown. In this context prototype would seem to mean prototype test or demonstration systems (such as ULTra/Cardiff) or functional complete elements (such as the Skyweb vehicle). I suppose operational scale models (Aerospace Corp. or Vectus "scaled track") could be considered prototypes also. Although physical simulations must be considered mockups. 15Jun06, 15:57 CDT

Is it possible the author of "a small number of destinations" meant a small number of popular destinations, i.e. urban activity centers? 15Jun06, 16:05CDT

Having gone back into the History, I see that indeed that seems to be what was meant-- e.g., an airport terminal (popular destination) linked by PRT to several parking lots (larger number of embarkation points). Another example is a stated goal of the Skycab program, which is to provide transit access to train stations.

In the context of initial PRT implementations therefore, I think the characterization is sound and the passage can be restored to that meaning if clarified. I propose Prototypes and systems in current development are often proposed for a specialized application, such as linking a number of dispersed locations (e.g., parking lots) to a popular major destination (e.g., airport terminal). 15Jun06, 17:10CDT

3D grid

This page doesn't have any mention of a 3D grid that some PRT people talk about. I think it deserves a small paragraph or something. Although england doesn't have them, I think this sentence would clarify things for people that are familiar with freeways - or at least with overpasses:

"A 3D grid design builds guideways so that perpendicular guideways do not intersect - much like freeway overpasses allow the cars on the freeway to continue non-stop."

Comments? Fresheneesz 19:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In England the corresponding things are called "motorways". I'm unsure of the merit of using a culture dependent word in a clarification. And if you've ever been on the M25, you'll know why PRT systems (which don't have traffic jams) are nothing like motorways. Think of Route 101 perhaps ;-) I think the 3D grid idea is important because it allows free flow - perhaps I would use the blood stream as an analogy. Stephen B Streater 20:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose.. but I doubt many people think about intersections and blood vessels that much - and, don't most blood vessels run parallel, not perpendicular? Fresheneesz 20:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The grid layout of towns is a particularly American thing. In England, roads often join up places which are sporadically placed, or run along bendy rivers. Roads usually do cross at right angles though. And blood vessels maybe not the right analogy, I concede. How about a big airport? They are good at people flow. Stephen B Streater 20:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I could suggest we switchout "freeway" for "highway", which the motorway page says a motorway is. I'm not sure about the airport idea, what did you have in mind? We could mention how airplanes don't cross paths, but rather fly over or under the other. Fresheneesz 20:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The ideal network layout uses merges and diverges as much as possible and over/underpasses as rarely as possible, so as to avoid roller coaster effects. Even with such a guideline, it might be possible to design citywide grids so that that are several straight-line crosstown guideways. But even if a few turns were necessary to get across town, that ought not to be a problem given nonstop, 25-40 mph service. 15 June 06, 18:26 CDT -

Today, the concept of PAT (Personal Automated Transport) is 
often used to describe automated personal transportation systems for
both passengers and freights.