Template talk:Infobox Disney attraction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disney (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect 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.
 Template  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


Replacing existing templates[edit]

Please note, that once these templates have been replaced, they should be deleted, and their talk pages archived here.

Also, once they have been deleted, this template will be renamed "Infobox Disney attraction".

Talk Archive from Template talk:Disney World ride[edit]

NOTE: This section is an archive. Please do not add or modify it

How is the Intercot link in here not a self serving link? I personally dont think something like that needs to be in a template but should be in the references. --Napnet 22:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess if no one complains, I'll remove it since in theory we should also add links to sites like WDWMagic, WDWHistory, All Ears, Jim Hill, Laughingplace.com and others that have information about Disney rides in the template. I'll wait till August 12, 2006. --Napnet 17:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was odd being there as well, not saying Intercot is bad, but if anything is there it should be a link to the official page. --blm07 06:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok I removed it and checked to make sure it didn't break anything. No one seemed to mind. --Napnet 23:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

New template[edit]

Since I was never happy with the super duper simple templates (Template:Disney show & Template:Disney ride) I've been tinkering with a brand spanking new infobox template for the past couple of hours.

Check out Template:Infobox Disney attraction, it can be used for Disney shows and rides and it looks as nice as the infobox on some articles. To see it in action check out this example. It even includes a place for the four New York World's Fair attractions and sponsors for each resort used. --blm07 02:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Template:Infobox Disney attraction is much more inclusive, and this template should be deprecated in favor of the infobox. There are still some problems with it, but I will address them on that talk page. Bytebear 00:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

New discussion[edit]

I saw you added entries for these two icons, so I uploaded two icons from park maps that you can add to the template: Image:Disney - Transfer from wheelchair icon.png Image:Disney - Assistive listening icon.png --blm07 02:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was going to request it. we also need closed captioning. Bytebear 02:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've archived the old discussions in Template talk:Infobox Disney attraction. That keeps the old discussions and includes editing history. When the move happens, all the old talk pages will be there. I haven't moved the Disney ride template's talk page yet however. --blm07 04:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still unsure about this. Is it some kind of rule that all this sort of information is supposed to be in the infobox? Is it that bad to have a separate section just for the bigger facts? And you want to put the roller coaster infobox underneath the Disney one? If this is what the people want, then so be it, but hardly anyone says anything. I'm not opposed to my template being removed if it is for one that I'd consider better and I do consider this one better, I just feel it has too much info. --blm07 05:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at some of the pages using the new template. I think it makes it much easier to read. I don't think we need the Roller Coaster template, as the new template covers most of the settings, and has 8 general values for additional info. I agree we need more feedback. maybe we can request a formal review. or we can look at the talk pages of other infoboxes for clarity. Bytebear 22:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I forgot one icon: Image:Closed captioning symbol.svg it is the same exact icon that Disney uses on their guide maps. It was already here on Wikipedia. If I ever have a chance to, I'll scan all of the icons in much nicer quality. --blm07 08:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. That's great. I made a slight attempt to clean up the images, but I am just not an artist. I will leave that to the more talented. Bytebear 20:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Just saw this on wikipedia: Image:Deafsymbol.jpg and once again, this is the exact image that Disney uses for the ALD system. I'll keep an eye open for more. --blm07 21:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've created a transfer icon: image:Attraction transfer icon.png, it is free and I think it looks better than the cruddy one I uploaded before. Also, I added captions to the various icons. --blm07 06:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


I think the fact that one has to enter a notion in ft. and that its metric conversion is displayed in brackets is a bit US-centric. There are other English-speaking countries, you know, and they have converted to the metric system. Can't there be an option to enter something in meters? SergioGeorgini 19:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

it might be good to add measurements for metric as well, but it does get complicated. you have one value "height_ft" and "height_m" and the template can calculate the alternative displaying "000ft (000m)" or should it be "000m (000ft)"? Since Disney is a US company and two of the parks (including the original flagship Disneyland), I have no problem supporting only the US-centric style. Perhaps we can add the other style, but then what are the rules for it's use? Do we have US parks use the US style, and all others the metric? How to we explain to editors that they do not need to include both values? It is something to think about, but there are about 100 pages that are still using the old template, which I think is a more pressing issue. Bytebear 19:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I suppose the brackets could be removed at the very least, so that a notion would be displayed as "45ft/22m" rather than "45ft(22m)". I realise it's a complicated matter script-wise, but it just feels very wrong to a non-American to have to convert something to this (which you consider an archaic) system even though you're editing a Disneyland Paris article. And Tokyo Disney Resort isn't even owned by Disney, so trying to jusify the ft. system there is clutching to straws.
It's a small issue of little importance, but it would be nice to see it corrected. SergioGeorgini 12:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The trouble with leaving it as-is is that the measurements for Disneyland Paris are just plain wrong. The metric conversions result in values that are different to the ones displayed at the park itself. MrMarmite (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, have US parks use the US style, and all others the metric. It might get a little complicated but it's completely inappropriate to use imperial/US units as the main units for Disneylands outside of the US. To explain to editors that they do not need to include both values there is the doc page. One alternative to adding extra parameters would be to have a unit preference parameter which you could switch to metric for conversions from metric to imperial/US but having fewer parameters does not mean it's easier to use. If you have site_area_sqft, it's quite clear what unit is to be input, it's square feet ... not acres ... and what if you want acres? It's time this be fixed. JIMp talk·cont 14:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Disneyland Railroad (Paris) is still in the imperial mode and to make things "interesting", Disneyland Railroad uses template:infobox rail. Strange. Peter Horn User talk 20:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Walt Disney World Railroad also uses template:infobox rail. Peter Horn User talk 20:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
"45ft/22m" rather than "45ft(22m)", above. That's hillarious. "45 ft/14 m" rather than "45 ft (14 m)" Peter Horn User talk 23:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


Do we want to add E-Ticket and other ticket information? I suppose we can use the custom fields, but it might be nice to use a graphic for the ticket. Thoughts? Bytebear 00:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you go for a graphical look, you might want to use the Waltograph font. There is enough room on the other side of the extra options to put something like "Ticket: E" there (with the ticket letter being the image. The only thing is, how to tell the viewer that this ticket method isn't used anymore. --blm07 01:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You could have it like this maybe: "Ticket: E" --blm07 01:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Deaf symbol[edit]

So apparently it "can't" be used, so what about this? Maybe I'll try to make something. --blm07 03:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Here it is: Image:Assistive listening icon.png. Crummy? Good? Don't know, but that's why its free. --blm07 03:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wheelchair symbol discussion[edit]

In case any of you are not yet aware, there is currently a discussion in progress at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Use of international wheelchair symbol concerning whether or not we should use the International Symbol of Access to indicate handicapped-accessible Disney rides, train/metro statains, etc. Our other options are plain text without an image or an alternative icon such as Wheelchair.svg. Your input would be welcome. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow huge debate going on. Looks like paranoia, I think the image is fine to use in the template, but I'm not about to join a huge debate about it. Someone changed the template so the text is next to the symbols, anyone know why there are empty spaces when some aren't used? Can it be fixed so there are no empty spaces? --blm07 21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for voicing your opinion!
I changed the template so that it would be a little more clear what the images stand for. I think I've got the spacing issues fixed now. Let me know if there are still problems. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Long lists[edit]

Since it has been quiet here for a while, I might as well bring this up. Do long lists really need to be in infoboxes? I think there should be a section just for scenes and / or previous attractions. It isn't necessary to shove all of that info into the box. --blm07 23:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. This is like a bit of a pet peeve of mine on TV infoboxes that re-list the list of episodes in the infobox.. -- Ned Scott 05:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I will disagree. There is a lot of choices on this infobox, but only about 5 or 6 of them are actually used for a single attraction. If you look at how it is used, this box is not long. Bytebear 22:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Look at Test Track, it's pointless to have all those scenes in there, and what about the MSEP article? The infoboxes would be utterly huge if the floats were put into the boxes. We really need more input on this template from the rest of the community. --blm07 01:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Test Track is an example of abusing the "custom" field, and adding every scene. It is not a standard field, and should be removed. Otherwise it looks fine. Bytebear 22:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Track gauge[edit]

How does one add |track_gauge= ((3ft)) ?? Peter Horn 02:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is currently a track_gauge parameter. You might be able to use one of the custom fields instead. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Please add the parameter track gauge for Disneyland Railroad (Paris), pleast see Talk:Disneyland Railroad (Paris)#Track gauge. Peter Horn User talk 23:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
So how does one parse the custom fields parameter? There is also the Wildlife Express Train. Peter Horn User talk 13:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I managed to insert "|track_gauge=", but now "{{{track_gauge}}}" appears in every infobox where ever it is used. How does one fix that? Peter Horn User talk 15:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 15:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I finally figured it all out. Peter Horn User talk 16:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


I'd like to propose that we add a coordinates field to this template, as I've noticed coordinates sprinkled around many different Disney attraction articles, but with no consistent home. It would be a natural fit for the infobox. See WP:COORDS for more info.-- φ OnePt618Talk φ 07:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This is necessary for articles that cover the same attraction at multiple parks around the world like Soarin' Over California and Captain EO. I'm not too conversant with template syntax so it might be better for someone else to handle it. In the meantime, I'll use the custom value field to add it to existing articles. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I second the need for it. However, Google will only parse only set of coordinates per page and it must be set to "display=title". This is preventing many locations in Google Maps and Google Earth from linking directly to Wikipedia articles that cover an a ride with more than one location, such as Big Thunder Mountain Railroad. I wonder if it would work to create redirects for each location of the ride with the proper coordinates in addition to adding the information to the infoboxes in the main article? Does Google parse redirects with coordinates? Perhaps I'll go create one as a test. —UncleDouggie (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 Done I have added a "coord" parameter to the template and updated Big Thunder Mountain Railroad to show the proper usage. —UncleDouggie (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Use in non-rides[edit]

Not all of the pages this infobox are about rides. There are other attractions including "lands". The name of the infobox & some of it's underlying assumptions (e.g. site area will be in square feet) don't fit. An array of specific infoboxes seems a bit of an overkill, better to fix this one up. Here's what I say.

  • Let the template be renamed from {{Infobox Disney ride}} to {{Infobox Disney attraction}}.
  • Make it more flexible.

I realise that renaming {{Infobox Disney attraction}} is a step backwards (it was moved from this title five years ago) but backwards is not always the wrong direction. I've given my argument for moving it back I see nothing in the archives justifying moving it here in the first place. JIMp talk·cont 15:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"Status" Parameter?[edit]

Shouldn't there be a "status" parameter within the template like most other attraction infobox's have?--Dom497 (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

In this section I am proposing the merger of this template into the other amusement park infobox templates with the ultimate aim of standardisation among all the articles. There are 300 transclusions of this template and I understand this is a big task, but I am willing to undertake it. As it stands there are several infoboxes out there for various types of attractions:

Each infobox has the benefit of being specific to that type of attraction (e.g. the roller coaster infobox provides detailed automatic categorisation). This Disney infobox is being used on 300 articles that all fall into one of the templates above. I have previously performed a merger with Template:Infobox Universal attraction.

Almost everything in this template is covered by the other templates with the exceptions of the following which could easily be handled with the {{{custom_value_x}}} series of parameters: control_system, propulsion, host, lift_count, audio-animatronics, and sponsor. I feel the latter parameter is a form of advertising and shouldn't really be included anyway. Another benefit with these other templates (all but themed area) is it can handle multiple locations. This reduces the amount of duplication between a series of stacked Disney infoboxes.

Does anyone else agree with me that this template should be merged or do you want to leave it the way it is? Themeparkgc  Talk  23:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the best point you mentioned in the merging of the Disney template with the other amusement park infobox templates is the reduction of multiple info-boxes in one article. The merger would certainly remove the clutter that can be found on several Disney attraction pages. As long as the exclusive parameters (such as Audio-animatronics) are still kept with the {{{custom_value_x}}} parameters, then I support the proposal. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
"As long as the exclusive parameters are still kept" - are you suggesting these parameters should be merged in the other templates? Since audio-animatronics are Disney-specific I was thinking you could do something like:
Would you be okay with something like that? Themeparkgc  Talk  00:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that would be perfect. (That's actually what I meant.) I should have said "included" rather than "kept with". :) ~ Jedi94 (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Jedi, I don't like having multiple infoboxes on one page and it would benefit having one infobox in each article.--Astros4477 (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Since we are on the topic on the attraction infoboxes, could we get it updated like the Template:Infobox amusement park? That template was "converted into a proper infobox" a couple months ago. The only difference I noticed was that the name at the top wasn't in a blue bar anymore like it is now with the roller coaster, water ride, etc... Infoboxes. It would be nice to see them updated and standardized with the amusement park infobox. I'm not sure exactly how to do that though.--Astros4477 (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I have actually been looking into this. The only thing is these templates are a bit more complex than the amusement park and water park infoboxes. Themeparkgc  Talk  03:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Well I knuckled down and got some of the infoboxes converted to {{Infobox}}. I will need to look into the roller coaster infoboxes another time. Themeparkgc  Talk  06:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
They look great. When will be a good to start changing all of the Disney infoboxes into one of the others? I'd be willing to help with this.--Astros4477 (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I concur with the previous posters. The merger looks good and I support it. Thomprod (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I know it has only been a little over 24 hours but since all of the comments thus far have been in support I might start working on converting these over. Further comments are still welcome. Also, thanks for the offer of assistance Astros - it's greatly appreciated. To try and manage this effectively, I'll start to tackle Category:Disney California Adventure Park. Astros if you want to work on another park's category feel free to do so. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll start with Category:Epcot.--Astros4477 (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you know what the file name for the Fastpass icon is? I need it for the virtual queue system parameter.--Astros4477 (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
File:Fastpass availability icon.svg Themeparkgc  Talk  02:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Question I realize that you are already implementing this, but is there evidence that this has been a problem? Usually if it ain't broke, don't fix it.JOJ Hutton 02:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
As I said in the original proposal, the replacement templates can handle multiple locations. This reduces the amount of duplication between a series of stacked Disney infoboxes and reduces the amount of space in the whole article required for infoboxes. Another benefit is it standardises Disney attractions with all other attractions around the world. While the template isn't broken, I still feel it is worthwhile performing the merge. Themeparkgc  Talk  02:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that the blue box with the attraction name has disappeared from the infobox. Looks kinda weird without the blue box. Any chance on bringing it back?--Dom497 (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
That was part of the conversion to {{Infobox}}. That format is used on over a million Wikipedia articles. I prefer it because it makes the infobox look cleaner to all readers and it is easier for editors to add/edit/remove fields. Themeparkgc  Talk  05:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know. I like the idea of having Disney specific infobox templates. It gave the templates more flavor and magic. (In my mind of course). I just feel like the articles are losing some of what made them special and unique. (Again in my mind), Disneyland is not just another theme park, its the only theme park. All the other places are simply places to go ride on rides, but Disneyland has always been a much different experience for me at least. Could we create Disney specific templates that basically function the same way?--JOJ Hutton 16:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Dom, as stated above it was part of the conservation. This was also changed in the amusement park template. It does look different but that's because it's new, it doesn't seem as crowded anymore.
JOJ, the parks are different in real life but they don't need to be different on Wikipedia. We want to standardize all the amusement park attractions and just because Disney is magical in real life, that doesn't mean their articles should differ from Cedar Fair, Six Flags, or Universal.--Astros4477 (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
No, thats just how I'd like to see it.--JOJ Hutton 16:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm working on Category:Disney's Hollywood Studios. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


Themeparkgc, I tremendously appreciate what you have done here. The articles with the infoboxes that have been changed over generally look a lot less cluttered. The only concern I have is an aesthetic one. I liked how on the old infoboxes (and on most infoboxes I have come accross on Wikipedia), the name field is located inside the infobox and is highlighted with a band of color.
The location (park) field also looks better when it is highlighted with a band of color, in my opinion. On the infoboxes for attractions found in multiple parks (see Star Tours: The Adventures Continue), this color band is there, while on the infoboxes for attractions found in only one park (see The American Idol Experience), it is not.
If these things could be fixed, I would have no concerns. (In regards to your comments about including sponsors in the infoboxes: In the history of Disney Parks, few things can have greater influence in the shaping of an attraction than its sponsor. At Epcot in particular, pavilion concepts have been scrapped, attractions completely overhauled, and entire pavilions closed due in part to a change in or lack of sponsor. Additionally, knowing the current and former sponsors of an attraction and seeing how that attraction has been modified over the years as a direct result of the changes in sponsors is interesting from a historical standpoint. Including the sponsor is not a form of advertisement in any way. No more than stating that the park is operated by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, or designed by Walt Disney Imagineering.) Again, thank you to everyone who is working to accomplish this. The articles look great! —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 13:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I think what Jclavet said about the appearance of the infobox is justified. The band of color did make the infobox seem more aesthetically pleasing. Is there a way we could implement that one detail into the infoboxes? ~ Jedi94 (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm in favor of having the gray band across the location (park) field but I'd rather the name field not have the blue band.--Astros4477 (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I think unless the name field does have the band, it makes the article seem kind of jumbled or cluttered at first, mostly because it is not inside the infobox and almost seems like stray text. (If it's a problem with the color you're having, the band doesn't have to be blue.) —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 19:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The only thing I'm really against is having two bands, that's one of the reasons I didn't like the Disney infobox before. I feel it's too boxy if there are two bands. I personally just like the idea of not having the blue name field band and just the gray location band. I just like that though because it's a change, it gives the article an updated look instead of the old blue band.
If you look at the last infobox on this page, (the Magic Kingdom one), I feel that doesn't look too cluttered if you have the gray location box then the name field as it is right on top of the infobox. I like the gray location bar with the blue text. That's what I personally want. Then leave the name field the way it is, without the blue bar.-Astros4477 (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm really okay with either. Both would be fairly simple changes that I'd have to apply to the templates. I'll see if anyone else has any opinions before I do make any changes though. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
So is the consensus to add the grey band to the location field at all times and to restore the blue band at the top of the infobox? Themeparkgc  Talk  04:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm for the grey band in the location field but I'm against the blue band at the top of the infobox. We'll see what other people say.--Astros4477 (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we should restore all of the grey bands and the blue bands. I just think it looks better and tidier that way. —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 14:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Undersea Adventure
The Little Mermaid - Ariels Undersea Adventure building (wide).jpg
The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Undersea Adventure
(the rest of the infobox goes here)
How about a compromise? The title text comes within the main infobox but it does not have the blue band (example to the right). I think it might resolve your "stray text" issue Jclavet. Thoughts? Themeparkgc  Talk  23:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Or how about reverting back to the original info boxes and retool them accordingly. What was the reason why they were changed again? Was there a specific problem, because it didn't look as if they needed to be fixed at all, and if its not broke, why fix it?.--JOJ Hutton 00:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely fine with me. I think it looks great. Good idea, Themeparkgc. And Jojhutton, do you have a problem with the new infoboxes? Or, are you just complaining for the sake of complaining? Because, I really don't see anything constructive at all stemming from the comments you're making here. —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 00:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The question is, was there something wrong with the old boxes? Were they not serving their purpose? And do you have a problem with counter discussion or should everybody just agree with everything you say all the time?--JOJ Hutton 00:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


As is stated by many users in the discussion above, the old infoboxes required a separate infobox for every different version of the attraction in each park. This caused the articles to look very cluttered. These new infoboxes solve that problem, making the pages much cleaner. So, were they serving their purpose? Yes. Was there a problem with them? Yes. Do these new infoboxes fix that problem while serving the same purpose better? Absolutely.

I have no problem with counter-discussion. Often, I find it to be educational, and even enjoyable. Except when it appears that somebody is only "counter-discussing" for the sake of complaining without the aim of improving Wikipedia. —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 00:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all "Many User"? (You mean the four of you?) Second, I saw no evidence of any clutter in the info boxes. And although there may be a previous comment on this page, arguing that they looked cluttered, I haven't seen it. This is the first time I have heard the "cluttered" argument. If they were cluttered why could't the "problems" with the boxes have been corrected, leaving the parts that work. I didn't see anything broken, or wrong, or cluttered about those infoboxes. There are enough Disney theme parks to justify having a dedicated infobox for just those parks and attractions. Also, I don't think that templates get a redirect. It's still a viable infobox and could have it's use in the future.--JOJ Hutton 01:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I just went back through and read the discussion. I counted at least five different occasions where it was mentioned that these new infoboxes make the articles that use them less cluttered because there does not need to be multiple infoboxes. I understand that there are many Disney attractions, but that doesn't mean the infoboxes for Disney attractions would be any different than the infoboxes for any other theme park attractions. I don't see any reason to keep the old infobox around, seeing as this new infobox covers everything the old one did and more. —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 01:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I saw one, but making the statement that it looks cluttered without showing any evidence isn't convincing me at all. It's easy to make a statement without showing evidence that it was a problem. Go ahead and make unnecessary changes to a massive number of articles that didn't appear to have any problems anyway. You obviously have the numbers on your side, but since I am the only one who feels differently than the majority I am obviously just complaining for the sake of complaining? Which was not a comment on the content, but a direct comment toward another editor, which is basically a personal attack. So basically thanks for running me off.--JOJ Hutton 03:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not trying to run you off, and I sincerely apologize if it seemed as if I was trying to make a personal attack towards you. I assure you, I was not. —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 03:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Themeparkgc, that looks good, I like it. To comment on this discussion, it did clutter the articles. Many articles had many infoboxes and sometimes it made the articles look messy and unorganized. It's nice having one inbox that contains all the information. Take a look at this compared to this, doesn't it just overall make the article look cleaner and more organized? I'm sure there's even better examples but I'm not spending my time roaming wikipedia looking for an article that used to be really cluttered.
All we're trying to do is improve the articles and make them easier to read. I hope we can continue working together to improve articles across the project--Astros4477 (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
There were countless examples like the one Astros gave where the stack of varying sized infoboxes equaled or even exceeded the article length. This was just plain messy and was the main motivation for me making the original proposal. The amount of work required to revert the conversions Jedi, Astros and I performed and then retool this infobox to function exactly like other infoboxes already do would be counter-productive and against the opinions of the majority of the users that have commented here. Jojhutton, you said yourself that you'd like to see Disney articles that are "special and unique" (to me this would be against WP:NPOV). I also doubt anyone could argue that the edits made have negatively affected any of the articles.
Anyway, back to the aesthetic issue at hand, since the two opposing parties agreed with my compromise I decided to implement them in the templates. All infoboxes (with the exception of {{Infobox Amusement park}} because it is protected) should now have the title inside the box and the grey band over the location field. Themeparkgc  Talk  07:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Themed areas[edit]

What is the consensus for themed areas with more than one location? Currently they have an infobox for each park section. Since the themed area infobox template only takes one park should it just replace the current usage of the Disney template and have multiple versions of it throughout the article? The other alternatives are having a combined infobox with limited information (such as the one on the top of Adventureland) or extending the themed area infobox to cater for multiple parks. Themeparkgc  Talk  04:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think extending it to include more than one location is the best. That way there's not multiple infoboxes on a page.--Astros4477 (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, extending it would be best. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I extended the template to cater for up to 6 locations and applied it on all the major themed area articles (Fantasyland, Tomorrowland etc). Themeparkgc  Talk  00:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Multiple themes[edit]

Almost there! There are only 3 more articles that have the infobox. All of them are related to Epcot and feature multiple infoboxes for the attractions' various themes and names. Any suggestions on how to handle these?

Themeparkgc  Talk  01:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ya I noticed that when I was doing Epcot. I hate having more than one infobox on a page but I don't see another way to do it.--Astros4477 (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 Done Themeparkgc  Talk  04:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Replacing Disney attraction templates[edit]

I have created a listing of all the categories that need to be changed below. Add the done icon and sign it when you've completed it. This is a easy way to list all the categories that have been done.--Astros4477 (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem with new info boxes[edit]

Why is there Undue color in these boxes? Green for opened lands and red for closed ones? What is the potential need for this color? Doesn't saying "open" and "closed" accomplish the same effect without the color?JOJ Hutton 23:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The colour has been in the other infoboxes for at least a year now. It was first suggested here and then implemented by me on all the infoboxes. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I like the colors, there's also yellow for testing and purple for under construction and under refurbishment.--Astros4477 (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Liking the color is one thing, but is it needed? Didn't see the any color in the previous infobox. I don't see any need for it at all. JOJ Hutton 01:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there anything wrong with there being color in the new infoboxes? —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 01:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. It gives undue weight to one particular part of the infobox over the others. You can't help it. Your eye gets directed straight toward that particular part/parts of the infobox.--JOJ Hutton 02:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with it. It's used in other templates too.--Astros4477 (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You have completely misread that policy. That is only regarding minority and majority opinions and how they should be represented in articles, not about visual design or color usage. By your reasoning, couldn't the blue links also draw undeserved attention? —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 02:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, blue links can be just as distracting. I think that they need to stand out just a bit however, so that can be easily identified. But blue is not nearly as distracting as red or green text. Per MOS:INFOBOX, infoboxes should be as simple as possible and shouldn't be overly decorative. Is there a really good reason why they must be colored? Simply wanting it that way isn't enough. Does the color serve a purpose at all? Does it portray any additional information than is read with simple text?JOJ Hutton 03:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe those colors lend themselves to this purpose; they are universally associated with something that is on or off, functioning or not functioning, acceptable or unacceptable, good or bad, and so on. I think they are good visual cues in this situation. I did notice, though, that your signature makes use of those very "distracting" colors. —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 04:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
My Signature isn't main space and is not part of the encyclopedia, so lets not attempt to redirect the focus of the problem by using fallacy arguments. We're getting enough of that already in the United States; being an election year and all. Secondly, would the same information not encyclopedically represented to the reader if the words were in normal black instead of color?--JOJ Hutton 13:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the colors are needed to convey the information; I believe that they help to convey the information. But, I'm curious as to why you think the colored text is harmful. —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 14:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Colored text is ultimately distracting to many readers. The color gives the impression that that single part of the infobox has more importance than any other part. Since the same information is Given without the color, it's better to remove the distracting color since its not needed anyway. JOJ Hutton 14:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)