Talk:List of Disney theme park attractions

Toy Story Mania ?!!?

Keep an eye on the Toy Story Mania page, as it may end up moving to Toy Story Mania!. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpikeJones (talk • contribs) 19:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

'Planned' Attractions

Given that numerous attractions are 'planned' and rumored, are we only going to commit to those attractions formally announced by the company? Case in point 'Western Expedition' was planned for WDW but never technically buildt. There have also been a plethora of attractions that got killed sometime before being green-lit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.129.91 (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Years

Are we supposed to be adding years to this? I don't like the idea but I'm wondering what others are thinking. Also, can anyone make the Epcot column wider? --blm07 18:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

IF we add years, I would add them to the column itself, not to the attraction name. Ideally, the year info should be on the linked attraction page. Putting the years on this page may make it too cluttered. Perhaps a "for years of operation, please view each attractions page" notice would suffice.SpikeJones 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought years would be nice, especially for closed attractions. It should be in the "park" cell, because different parks will have different dates. Clearly this list will need clean up, but I think we should first focus on getting the list complete. Bytebear 01:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Names

This will come up eventually, might as well start the discussion now. Should we have each name change under a new entry or put it all under one. Things like Buzz Lightyear will have four entries instead of a crammed one, but that is the only attraction with so many name changes. Currently some things like "Countdown to Extinction" and "Dinosaur" have two entries, with the old name marked as closed. --blm07 19:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is a separate page for the attraction, then it should have a separate entry in the list, IMHO. Some articles combine past and present attractions, others separate them. Bytebear 01:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Former Attractions

It would make the list easier to use and clearer if it was seperated into at least Current Attractions and Former Attractions. It may be worth discussing how we could format or arrange this to be more useful/useable. Tiggerjay 20:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Major cleanup needed

There are quite a few spelling errors, and there are restaurants, fireworks shows and parades in this list. This is only supposed to list attractions. Also, we should find a way to do edits in mid-list more easily. 70.181.109.146 07:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Restaurants, fireworks shows and parades are attractions too. They attract people to come. Valerius Myotis 01:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel like the name of this article should be List of Walt Disney World Attractions to be more accurate and formal.--Mike730 (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This article covers attractions from all Disney theme parks, not just Disney World. Bytebear (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Pavilion vs pavilion

So this is something that I've been thinking about. Why should "pavilion" be capitalized after attraction names? "Pavilion" isn't part of the official name, so why should it be capitalized? --blm07 02:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Becaue it's capitalized in all of their articles. Valerius Myotis 02:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

hmm, I just noticed - in most of their articles... Valerius Myotis 02:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about overall in Wikipedia. I don't see a reason that it should be capitalized at all, maybe someone can tell me what the reason is. --blm07 02:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

On their homepage] they capitalize pavilions too, as part of the names I guess, but in some descriptions they write pavilions in lower case. Valerius Myotis 03:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

When it is part of the name of the pavilion it should be capitalized as it is part of a proper name (ie Canada Pavilion)Arrjay74 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Guidemaps from the park only show the country name, but on the website "Pavilion" is added. Both are official sources. My opinion is that the country itself is the official name. --blm07 17:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. On Disney.com they use the Pavilion naming both in text and on the map available. Since Disney calls it the Mexico Pavilion instead of just Mexico, I feel the former is a more "official" name. Arrjay74 (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the years of guidebooks that I have that only show the country names? Disney should make up their mind. --blm07 19:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed the inconsistency as well. I'm in favor of keeping Pavilion in the name simply because it seems this is the naming that Disney currently favors, or at least it is what they present on their website about the parks. Arrjay74 (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Someone suggested that the various park attractions lists should be merged into this list. That is ridiculous. How can you fit all of the information from those lists into this list? --blm07 であります！ 16:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is no way that is going to happen. The list is of all parks, so sections for just WDW attractions added in would look weird. Most of the information is already in the chart, But it would be stupid to erase the whole MK, EPCOT, etc.page.--Mike730 (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup and reorganization

So, this page hasn't been looked at for a cleanup in some time and is missing some of the more recent attractions, as well as some old ones I have information on from a really handy Disney website. Shanghai Disney also was added as a top column without adding the "|" bar breaker to carry the column all the way down making things look a little funky so I'm in the process of fixing that as I add in the omitted attractions.

While I am doing that, I would like to make a suggestion to make this table a little easier to dissect information from at a broad glance. I think perhaps it would be advantageous to break up the listings into the three major categories they come from: Rides and shows, fireworks and parades, and other (restaurants, pavilions, the like). I think a color key would be confusing on top of the one already used for the time element so perhaps a stylized key would work well. Rides and shows in bold, fireworks and parades in italics, and other in underline.

Also, there doesn't seem to be any consistency regarding the attractions that don't have articles created for them yet. Some are dead links and others are not linked at all. Any thoughts on the above items? Pianoman1125 (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a question regarding your comment about breaking the listing up into categories. Do you mean you'd restructure the article like this:

1. Rides and shows

1.1 A-D

1.2 etc

2. Fireworks and parades

2.1 A-D

2.2 etc (if necessary)

3 Other

3.1 A-D

3.2 etc (if necessary)

As for red links, I think they should be removed, although I think a few of the articles might exist under a slightly different name than what is currently linked.

Just a final thought, maybe a single table with collapsible sections by letter of the alphabet could work well? Themeparkgc  Talk  10:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was more imagining leaving the format of the table as is, and merely stylizing the name of the attraction based on it's type. Rides and shows in bold, fireworks and parades in italics, other like restaurants and pavilions underlined. Something like that.

I agree with you on the linking as well and you're right, there are a few rides where the linked name doesn't line up with what the ride is actually called and so is a dead link. I'm fixing those as I run across them. Pianoman1125 (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at MOS:TEXT for the use of bold and italics. I don't think that a key based on bold, italics and underline should be included. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

In this isolated instance, I believe the text stylizing would be the most effective way of differentiating the categories at a glance, which I feel is important on a page like this that features such a wide variety of information; and I'd feel it would fall under the "ignore all rules" caveat since this page features none of the reasons listed in the MOS for bolding or underlining (except the column headers) thus avoiding to create any conflicts singularly on this page between standard conventions and the unique ones used therein. I think further colorization for a key would be a bad idea but I am, of course, open to any other suggestions as to how to go about accomplishing this. Pianoman1125 (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I like what was done with the font and table size. Looks great. Pianoman1125 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. How about something like this for the table? At the moment it will only work well if you have a decent sized monitor. I'll have to program a minimum width across the board to make it look good on all displays. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)