Talk:Disney California Adventure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject California / Los Angeles / Southern California (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Los Angeles task force (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Southern California task force (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Amusement Parks / Walt Disney Parks and Resorts  (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts task force (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Disney (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Requested Move[edit]

Disney's California Adventure ParkDisney California Adventure — In new marketing, such as logo and World of Color advertisement on the official Disneyland Resort website, the park is referred to as Disney California Adventure. 76.200.171.61 (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

STOP WITH THE MOVING! This page has been moved four times in 24 hours. I've asked for move-protection so everyone can discuss here what the name of the article needs to be. For what it's worth, the proposed name above is just fine, since the park's name is unambiguous (how many other California Adventure parks are there?). --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
While I'm not involved in this, I see no reason why this article isn't at the page Disney California Adventure. It's not something that needs to be discussed, and whoever keeps moving it back is quite frankly, wrong. --khfan93 20:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure that what Disney intended was it to simply be "California Adventure Park". "Disney California Adventure" sounds grammatically incorrect. --67.180.161.183(talk)16:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Being that it has been over a year, I too believe the article needs to be moved to Disney Calfifornia Advemture. Everything refers to it as just that and not with "park" on the end of it. Astros4477 (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that the name of the place is *not* "Disney California Adventure Park" but is in fact simply "Disney California Adventure." Whether one thinks it sounds grammatical or not is besides the point. If the official page for Disneyland park points to "Disneyland," then this page should follow the same format. I was frankly surprised to see this get redirected from "DCA" to "DCAP". Could we get this corrected, please? Traveliter (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps an "official" move request would be in order. But per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia should use simply California Adventure. Its already a redirect, and is most assuredly the most common name.--JOJ Hutton 02:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Cars Land[edit]

I made a major revision to the Cars Land section. Basically, I re-arranged the sentences to be in a more logical order. I also removed some of the more flowery language and a reference to the Radiator Springs ride being an "E-Ticket attraction", since the parks no longer use tickets. (I'm sure the original editor meant to use the phrase figuratively, but there is already a mention of the ride's large construction budget, saying that it is one of the most expensive rides ever built).

I was tempted to remove the sentence that reads "Cars Land will also serve as a connection between the Golden State and Hollywood Pictures Backlot lands, to eliminate the awkward dead end at the foot of the Tower of Terror attraction." I do not believe this to be true, because I think that it's a bug's land will be between Cars Land and the Hollywood Pictures Backlot. However, I would like another editor to verify this. Primogen (talk) 05:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Name needs to be changed[edit]

This pages name needs to be changed to Disney California Adventure. I know that it used to have Park but now the logo and everything else refers to it just as Disney California Adventure. --Astros4477 (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll take it even a step further than that. The name of the article should simply be "California Adventure", per WP:COMMONNAME. Few ever use the work "Park" when describing the place, and hardly anyone ever uses the nomenclature "Disney" when referring to the park. We have already set up a precedent with Disneyland, which already uses the COMMONNAME approach. Why not do so on this article? California Adventure is only a stones throw away from Disneyland, why not have both articles adhere to the COMMONNAME guideline? --JOJ Hutton 15:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree but when I look at the Disney World parks, Hollywood studios and Animal Kingdom have Disneys in front because that's the official name. I most defiantly agree that the "Park" needs to be dropped --Astros4477 (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
In those examples, the modifier, "Disney" is used commonly. They would have to be, given that there are other Hollywood Studios and Animal Kingdoms other than Disney parks.--JOJ Hutton 19:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the original proposal. When looking at the official website I see nothing but "Disney California Adventure Park". When text-based materials are available they should be used over that of a logo. See this page for a similar discussion. If you really want to move the page, please take it to WP:RM to develop a proper consensus rather than just moving it yourself. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
A friend recently got a vacation planner from Disneyland, and its materials refer to the facilities as "Disneyland Park" and "Disney California Adventure Park" (italics from the original). So perhaps the italicized part is the park's official name, then the term after it describes what it is. For example, Disney materials often refer to one of the water parks at Walt Disney World as "Typhoon Lagoon Water Park", yet that's not how we have it listed on Wikipedia ... we have it as just Typhoon Lagoon. --McDoobAU93 14:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
There's no question that Disney California Adventure Park is the official name, but Wikipedia tends to favor the common name of the subject. California Adventure tends to be the more common name of this particular subject.--JOJ Hutton 19:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 June 2012[edit]

May I have the permission to edit this wiki page I have knowledge on the disney parks jedwards

Jedwards58 (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: You'll need to provide a specific change you want to make. The article is semi-protected for a short time due to excessive vandalism. --McDoobAU93 02:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Change to theme park attendance. - Numbers for 2011[edit]

The page currently lists the attendance for 2010 as the best year. Numbers have now been made available for 2011 (http://www.teaconnect.org/pdf/2011Report.pdf) In 2011, California Adventure drew 6.341 million guests, a 1% increase vs 2010. This is its best attendance record to date, ranking it the 13th most visited theme park in the world, 7th in the USA and 2nd in California (the first in California being of course its direct neighbor, Disneyland.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.226.78 (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Disney California Adventure Mike Cline (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)



Disney California Adventure ParkCalifornia Adventure – This page currently has the official park name, and I can think of a lot of reasons why some people would want to keep it that way, but it's just not Wikipedia policy to use official names over the more common ones. According to the essay Wikipedia:Official names: Official English names are candidates for what to call the article, because somebody presumably uses them. They should always be considered as possibilities, but should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used. WP:COMMONNAME says Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. Honestly, who actually says the whole official name when they refer to the park?--JOJ Hutton 00:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – The official name is so cumbersome that I can't imagine anyone using it in ordinary conversation (unless they were paid to). –BarrelProof (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would, however, support "Disney California Adventure", dropping the "Park". If we went along these lines, we'd need to change Disney's Hollywood Studios to just "Hollywood Studios", which is the name everyone uses while there. --McDoobAU93 04:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem with that scenario is that there are other Hollywood studios that it can also be confused with. The word "Disney" in this case, is used as a modifier to disambiguate the park from some others. If not, I would clearly support a page move on that article as well. Yet there is no other California Adventure. The link already goes to the main article and there would be no confusion among readers as to the true meaning of the link.--JOJ Hutton 11:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The 'Disney' is important IMO to retain consistency between articles. Like McDoob pointed out, Disney's Hollywood Studios and also Disney's Animal Kingdom articles use the word Disney so why drop it? I agree however to drop the word Park. Oh and I don't know if it's just me being Non-American but I wouldn't know what you're referring to if you talk about "California Adventure". It's kind of vague.--Krystaleen (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose the proposal as stated ("California Adventure" is pretty vague for general audiences), but I'd support the compromise as laid out by McDoob and Krystaleen. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Disagree ‹See TfD› - "California Adventure" is not the common name; it is the colloquial name used by people who already know about the park. Simply using "California Adventure" will create ambiguity and confusion for people who don't know much about the subject. --Josh (Mephiles602) 17:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not familiar with the "Don't know much about the subject" policy. Could you link it? There is a common name policy. A subject doesn't need to be universally known to use the common name. There are literally thousands of articles on Wikipedia that I don't know much about the subject that use the more common name over the formal official name. Not sure how that creates ambiguity and confusion. By the way, "Colloquial" means: Used in ordinary and familiar conversation, or otherwise "most common".--JOJ Hutton 22:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, just as "Hollywood Studios" is colloquially used to refer to Disney's Hollywood Studios and "Animal Kingdom" is colloquially used to refer to Disney's Animal Kingdom. "Disney" is often used synonymously with Walt Disney World on the east coast and with Disneyland on the west coast, as in, "I'm going to Disney this weekend". As I've said to other editors on other subjects, we must assume that the reader of the article has no idea what the subject is (I believe this is the statement Mephiles is making). It is in that regard that we must use the best and most common name.
To add another point, we must always consider how it appears in reliable sources. In this case, they use the entire name, which matches that of the current article. Please note that the source is in the same market as the park itself, which therefore should mean they would use the "colloquial" name; after all, the vast majority of their readers would know of the park's existence and would therefore understand what was said. In this example, note that the author uses the name "Disneyland's California Adventure Park" at first, before shifting to the shorter "California Adventure Park" later in the story. This would suggest it would be appropriate to use the full name for the article, and then in the lead paragraph. Then, later in the text, the shorter "California Adventure" could then be used. --McDoobAU93 22:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • JOJHutton, I assume you were being sarcastic, but here you go: WP:AT. See the nutshell summary, "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." [emphasis mine] I'm not sure your proposal meets any of these standards. --BDD (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. COMMONNAME does not mean "title it what everyone calls it in conversation"; otherwise we'd have articles at Dubya and Obama (or "Nobama" depending on your proclivities), etc. It means "call it what reliable sources commonly call it". Reliable sources refer to it as "Disney California Adventure". Powers T 17:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per LtPowers. After re-reading COMMONNAME and looking at Google News, "Disney California Adventure" is the name the article should use. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Withdrawal of support – Lack of ambiguity is a good thing, and including "Disney" helps that. I can see that the general sentiment here seems to be in favor of "Disney California Adventure". After thinking more about it, that's probably the right thing to do. –BarrelProof (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RM decision based on inaccurate premise?[edit]

The above decision seems to be based on the assumption that the park is not commonly referred to as "California Adventure" in reliable sources. I don't think that's true. LATimes.com, for example, has more hits for "California Adventure" -"Disney California Adventure" (19,000) than for "Disney California Adventure" (16,500). Here is an example of this usage: [1]. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked at various sources, and what I found (and listed in my statement earlier) was that the more common use was to say the full name "Disney California Adventure Park" at first, and then resort to the colloquial "California Adventure" later. The main part of the consensus was that "Disney" needs to remain in place to remove any potential ambiguity, although "Park" can be dropped since it's not commonly used, outside of Disney promotional materials, anyway. --McDoobAU93 21:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I'm happy with "Disney California Adventure", and I think that was the correct reading of the consensus. There were other considerations discussed as well. Regarding the L.A. Times, that publication is based right there in the neighborhood, and it may be natural that they assume greater context awareness in their readership. I would be more interested in what is the way it is commonly referred to in the New York Times or the London Times. But in any case, I think closing with a move to "Disney California Adventure" was the correct reading of the situation. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I didn't want to get into this again after my "near decapitation" in the previous move discussion. I'm being facetious, I know that none of the above "oppositions" were personal. Yet we have hit on the crux of the problem. Who calls the park what? One publication may use a one variant more commonly than another. But if we interpret WP:COMMONNAME literally, it says to use The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources. Yet I feel that the letter of the guideline is thwarting the spirit of the guideline. The spirit is to use the "most common" term that most people use in real life. The reason for this is to allow Wikipedia articles to pop up more often in search engines when they are typed in, by using the most common terminology. The problem is that we can't simply go ask billions of people by what name they call something. To fix this problem, the authors of WP:COMMONNAME came up with the solution to use the "reliable sources" to determine the Common Name. And that works about 99% of the time. There is the rare occasion that it will not work. This is one of those cases. Its hard to imagine people standing on the street who actually say Disney California Adventure. And yes, I am sure that we can all remember some time when someone has used the whole name, but more often than not, people will call it by its most common name California Adventure.--JOJ Hutton 23:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

BarrelProof, I agree the closing was based on a correct reading of the discussion, but the discussion was based on an incorrect assumption about usage in reliable sources.

Ambiguity with what? There is no other use of "California Adventure" on WP. California Adventure redirects here, and that proves there is no ambiguity issue. Even if there were other uses and thus a California Adventure (disambiguation) dab page, this topic would still be primary.

McDoobAU93, there might be sufficient dispute about whether "Disney California Adventure" or "California Adventure" is more commonly used in RS to call it a toss-up; but in that case "California Adventure" still is preferred per WP:AT criteria for being the more concise choice.

If this doesn't get moved to California Adventure now, sooner or later there will be another proposal and discussion, because the current title contradicts WP:CRITERIA.

If it does get moved to California Adventure, it will almost certainly stay there forever, for there will be no sound argument to move it to anything else. That said, I made this same argument repeatedly for years at Talk:Yogurt before it was finally and permanently moved, after eight failed RM proposals (see Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory), so who knows how long it might take here. Why don't we just avoid all that turmoil and move it now? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Although the section heading I believe is inaccurate, I will gladly reopen this RM if there is consensus to do so. I know B2C thinks it should be reopened but the discussion above isn't that supportive of his position. What do others think? Is there consensus for the present title or not? --Mike Cline (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. The current name is stable, accurate and immediately informative as to its subject matter, especially for a reader who has no idea what's being discussed. Personally, I'm a theme park fan, and I do refer to it as simply "California Adventure" or even DCA for short, but I'm an enthusiast, and therefore not the true target audience for the article. I certainly see no reason why "California Adventure" can't be used predominantly in the text of the article while leaving "Disney California Adventure" as the article title and in the lead paragraph. --McDoobAU93 01:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
"I don't think it's necessary. The current name is stable, accurate and immediately informative as to its subject matter" - I challenge the claim of stability of this title, but only time will prove that out. But since "accurate and immediately informative" are not the WP:CRITERIA by which we decide titles, that's irrelevant. Also, "especially for a reader who has no idea what's being discussed." flies in the face of what recognizability says: "Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic."

Like I said, it's about finding the title that best meets WP:AT WP:CRITERIA, not any other criteria.

Whatever. I don't really care, I'm just trying to prevent future continued discussion about this. You'll see. If we don't change it now, it will remain contentious until it is changed. That's just what naturally happens to titles when they so blatantly contradict our standard criteria for no good reason. I've seen it time and time again.

I changed the title of this section. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess I don't see the crisis here. The last time a move was proposed, it was when Disney dropped the possessive S from the end of their name. It was colloquially called California Adventure then, too, but nobody mentioned that until two years later, which is when this move request got started. There hasn't been that much friction here like at Yogurt or even at Sega Genesis (both of which are in WP:LAME). I'm fine with whatever consensus comes up with, however. --McDoobAU93 01:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
No title issue is a crisis. But stable titles are those that meet WP:CRITERIA as best as possible. California Adventure does that better for the topic of this article than any other title, including Disney California Adventure. That's all. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
On what grounds? The only times the park is referred to as just "California Adventure" are when the context (of an amusement park) is already clear. When that context is not clear -- as in an encyclopedia -- the name is normally qualified with "Disney" (cf. Disney's Animal Kingdom, Disney's Hollywood Studios). To replicate that is not only consistent with our other theme park articles, but also aligns perfectly with WP:COMMONNAME. Powers T 15:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
"The only times the park is referred to as just "California Adventure" are when the context (of an amusement park) is already clear. "

You might have a point if that were true, but it's not. Here are about 17,800 times, in just the LA Times, where the park is referred to as just "California Adventure" without any such context clarification.

And here are about 1,700 more from the SF Chronicle:
Even the NY Times has over 2,000 such references:
As to the grounds, per recognizability, to anyone familiar with the park, the name "California Adventure" is the name that is used to refer to it. To call it "Disney California Adventure" is in fact somewhat misleading in terms of informing readers what its basic name is. Using Disney California Adventure instead of California Adventure for a title is like using William Jefferson Clinton instead of Bill Clinton, or United States of America instead of United States, which, as you know, we don't do. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
If we go with that approach, then when should we expect your move request at Walt Disney World Resort to use the colloquial favorite Disney World? That is what everyone refers to it as, and what most reliable sources use. Heck, even Walt Disney himself called it that when it was first announced! I agree with Lt. Powers ... consistency across the other Disney theme park articles and fits with WP:COMMONNAME. A redirect from California Adventure will be more than adequate for people searching based on that. --McDoobAU93 18:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
In a few minutes after I first became aware of this outrage... i.e. in a few minutes from now! --Born2cycle (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
That's all fine and good, but can't we fix this crisis first before we go to a new one? :) --McDoobAU93 19:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
That one is a much more obvious complete and total disregard for our naming criteria, so I've already created the RM request for it.

This one is also problematic because we have a record of apparent consensus support for the current title above. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually they're both rather cut-and-dried per WP:MOSTM. Theme park names are trademarked business entities, so we can't make up what they're called, even if reliable sources colloquially call them that. --McDoobAU93 19:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
So a consensus you disagree with is just an "apparent consensus" and "problematic", huh? Powers T 19:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Not at all. I'm distinguishing actual community consensus from local consensus which is supposed to indicate what community consensus probably is, based on the strength of the arguments - thus a local consensus is at best an indication of what actually community consensus is apparently.

McDoob, as I noted and explained further at the RM, WP:MOSTM applies to article content, not titles. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The community decided that the naming guidelines were best applied by using the name that was selected. You disagree; that doesn't mean everyone else was wrong. Powers T 19:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I challenge that the Google search results show widespread use of the name without "Disney" and without context. Most of them have clearly established that they're talking about a Disney theme park before using the name. Powers T 19:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Who said anything about such use being widespread? You're moving the goalposts. You started at: "The only times the park is referred to as just "California Adventure" are when the context (of an amusement park) is already clear. ", which the first of those results alone refutes. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud. You and I both know there are very few absolutes in the world. Feel free to assume a qualifier before any apparent absolute in my wording (i.e., "Virtually the only times...") Powers T 19:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, which is why I refuted your point with 10s of thousands of counter-examples, rather than just a handful or so. You will find more than enough counter-examples in the LA Times results to refute this revised statement of your position, including these first 6 results: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], or these from page 10 [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] of the results. "California Adventure" is clearly commonly used to refer to this topic in reliable sources (and, thus, natural), and it's more concise than the current title. On precision and recognizability (for those familiar) it's a toss-up. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────While we're at it, why don't we rename every article about a Disney park? Disney's Animal Kingdom to Animal Kingdom, Disney's Hollywood Studios to Hollywood Studios, Walt Disney Studios to Studios, and so forth. Perhaps it's because without the Disney identifier, they are just generic terms referring to nature, show business, and some grand time somebody is having in California.

These renaming proposals of yours regarding the various Disney properties are sounding quite ridiculous. I understand what the Wikipedia policies and guidelines say, and I hold a deep respect for them. However, they also clearly state that "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." Right now, you seem to be lacking both of those things.

How is a person outside of California, perhaps a user of the English Wikipedia outside of the United States, supposed to identify what "California Adventure" is if they have never heard of it. "Disney California Adventure" is not only the accurate name of the park, but it gives users unfamiliar with the topic a better idea of what it might be.

Let me give you another example. You seem to like search results counts. On Google, a search for Barack Obama returns 487,000,000 hits, while a search for "Obama" returns 734,000,000 hits. It would seem that "Obama" is a much more commonly used to refer to the current President of the United States. And in my own experiences, I hear people referring to him only as "Obama" much more often than "Barack Obama". Perhaps his Wikipedia article should be moved as well. And yes, I am sure that this particular example does not comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but I believe it illustrates my point. —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 00:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You claim that you "understand what the Wikipedia policies and guidelines say", and yet two sentences later you reveal otherwise when you rhetorically inquire, "How is a person outside of California ... supposed to identify what "California Adventure" is if they have never heard of it". Anyone familiar with the relevant Wikipedia policy here would know that we strive to make our titles reocgnizable only "to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic." But you don't need to read policy to figure this out, just look at actual usage. If you click on SPECIAL:RANDOM twenty times I bet you'll encounter at least 10 titles, probably more, for which someone unfamiliar with the topic could not identify what the topic is from just the title, especially if you don't count titles of articles about people, which of course are usually obviously about a person. Making our titles recognizable to someone unfamiliar with the topic is simply not what we do, nor have we ever done. If we started to try to make our article topics identifiable from the title by people unfamiliar with those topics, we would have to rename the vast majority of our articles.

Identifying the topic to those unfamiliar with the topic is the purpose of the article lead, not the article title. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Very well, but you've only addressed one of my four points. —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 02:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I call bullshit on B2C. He says the policy calls for reocgnizable only "to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic", but there's no only in WP:AT. And the clear consensus, last time I asked, was that statement that Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic was not to be interpreted to imply that there's no value in recognizability to people unfamiliar with the topic. So, B2C, please stop trying to impose your pet titling theories on the rest of us. Probably this is a good time for you to review what the ArbCom admonished you to do in the recent TITLE case. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's kind of hard to follow some of this discussion. The current name ("Disney California Adventure") seems just fine. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Electronica and the night time dance scene[edit]

I realize that Electronica was closed and the Mad Tea Party is now up and running? That according to sources. Jedi94 just switched the name to Mad Tea Party. Which is correct. But I was thinking of just renaming the entire section something like Nighttime dancing, or something else similar. Then we can add a short chronology of each of the events that took place there. I can't remember what it was called before Electronica, or if there was anything before that. Doing this will relieve the bur done of having to rename the sections every year or so.--JOJ Hutton 23:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

How about something more generic and all-encompassing, such as "Special events"? Then we can include whatever comes up. --McDoobAU93 01:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
That's fine. The main idea is that the article uses a catch all type heading similar to the way the Disneyland article covers "fireworks shows" and "Parades".JOJ Hutton 01:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
How about "Nighttime events" ... that would also include anything on World of Color, LuminAria, the evening parades, etc.? Open to any and all suggestions. --McDoobAU93 01:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Change of Park Icon[edit]

As of June 15, 2012, Grizzly Peak is no longer the park icon of Disney California Adventure. The article needs to be updated with the new icon, the Carthay Circle Theater. (SoarinMatt (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC))

Can you present us with some proof this is now the park's icon? A link is fine. --McDoobAU93 06:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
A quick search on Google revealed the following:
Can Grizzly Peak be demoted though or should/could it stay as well? Themeparkgc  Talk  07:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Support changing the icon to Carthay Circle Neo12345292 (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Support changing the icon to the Carthay Circle Theatre building is correct, every Disney park has a central point, or icon. In Disneyland, the Magic Kingdom, Disneyland Paris, that icon is in the form of the Castles. It's the 'Tree of Life' in Animal Kingdom. The globe in Eopcot. But in 'Disney's California Adventure' it was previously Grizzly Peak, but now since the name is changed to 'Disney California Adventure' the icon was changed to be the Carthay Circle Theatre. Rrodrigue (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead section[edit]

As recently as June 2012 this article had a decent lead section that summarized the most impoartant aspects of the article, which per WP:LEAD is the purpose of a lead section. Note that I said the lead at that time was decent, not ideal or even good. I have no idea why or exactly when, but since then the details that made that lead section decent were removed, so all we are left with is a barebones paragraph. I don't have the time right now to bring the lead to where it needs to be, but I will try to rewrite the lead and bring it in line with the park's current status. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Grizzly Peak[edit]

Is it just me or does Grizzly Peak look a lot like Vasquez Rocks?