Talk:Disney California Adventure/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Phase 2 refurbishment claims

I don't see why anyone added the phase two claims. There is no official confirmation, and half of the ideas aren't even being speculated. I want an opinion on if I should delete it, as it is completely unverified. Thanks. Stitchon (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Other previous planned expansions

I remember a long time ago that there were up to four different varieties as a planned expansion/second disneyland park in anaheim. For instance, one of them was a water based park. Maybe this went on to become the disneysea park in Tokyo. Do any of you have any information about the other varieties. I remember that los angeles times had four different pictures/diagrams of all the four parks. I would like to look at those again and see if it looks like any current disneyland parks. --Sp0 (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Sp0 (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

wtf ?

Is this an advertisement? Most advertisements are more informative than this appears to be. I haven't interfered here, but I thought the Simpson's quote added a depth here that is currently lacking. But a remark by Lisa Simpson might be out-of-place if this is a Disney advertisement. (What would I know?) Wetman 06:35, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

To clarify: this article sucks, and I personally would like it not to suck. It's not even a very good disney ad! There are a lot of very good criticisms that can be levelled at the place -- I'm not sure we need to start with flippant Simpsons quotes. They're taking over enough of the world as it is.
I have no problem with mentioning that in the context of other, deeper criticisms, but in my opinion it added nothing to the article as it stood. --Morven 16:49, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've largely rewritten the article. Let's work to improve it further. --Morven 22:27, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have serious PoV problems with this article the way it stands. It seems to be highly critical, while not really providing a lot of information about the park. Additionally, as time has gone on, many of the original criticisms have waned somewhat. I'm going to add some more pertinant information (including notes on the new Twilight Zone attraction). --Feedle 08:10, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

The entire "Lack of Success" heading is highly POV-loaded. I'm thinking it may need to be reworked into the "Criticism" section. Could the eighth most-visited theme park really be deemed "Lack(ing) Success" ? Also, can we get a cite for the "Eighth" claim? --Feedle 17:45, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Since some of those were mine -- I admit bias. The kind one can only have when one knows just how well Disney could have done it -- and didn't, thanks to the big Scrooge himself, Mr. Eisner. In fairness, many of the criticisms levelled applied to the park as originally opened and are less applicable now. One must say, though, that its 'eighth most-visited' status does have a bit of an 'along for the ride with Disneyland' effect -- whether it would have that success as a stand-alone is questionable. —Morven 19:09, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

"Initial Lack of Success" Change?

In the DCA article, I think the Initial Lack of Success section should be renamed something like "Attendance Figures" or something of that nature. The park is doing somewhat better than in it's first two years. Most theme parks aren't always totally successful at the start. Disneyland wasn't. Sure, it took a few years for Disney's California Adventure to gain popularity, but now it's the 8th most visited theme park in the US. -Evanwohrman 21:09, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This has been updated Tiggerjay 06:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)



Wikipedia is not a forum, these opinions must have citations if they are to be posted. Also admission to California Adventure park has never been the same price as Disneyland Park. removed:

  • Bad word-of-mouth from early visitors discouraged future visitors, stating the park was lacking in Disney-quality attractions.[1]
  • Hollywood Pictures Backlot had lack of focus on the restaurants, shops and attractions.
  • Lack of rides for young children.
  • The park's Californian theme was criticized as being redundant, seeing as the park itself was located in the same state it represented. Various tourist attractions and landmarks such as the Hollywood Sign and the beaches were located less than an hour away from the park.
  • Fans criticized the Paradise Pier area of the park because many of the attractions in this area were generic rides that guests do not expect to find at a Disney park. This was ironic because Walt Disney originally created the neighboring Disneyland to provide a theme park experience unlike boardwalk piers and amusement parks of the era, and instead wanted to create a park where the entire family could enjoy themselves.
  • With an estimated price tag of $600 million, the park was criticized for being built "on the cheap," with a small amount of attractions and minimal theming.
  • Many guests complained that a single day admission ticket to Disney's California Adventure cost the same as a single day admission ticket to Disneyland Park, yet contained fewer attractions, shows & entertainment.

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeonjoey (talk • contribs) 12:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's see, you removed a section with MULTIPLE references, including an article from the New York Times.

Plus since park opening in 2001, Disney has ALWAYS charged the same price for a one day/one park ticket at the Anaheim Resort. You get to go to EITHER Disneyland or DCA for a day. That is clearly the same price.

If you want more references in regards to the comments mentioned in the Initial Lack of Success, a large collection of news articles regarding the early years of Disney's California Adventure park can be found at this link.

http://micechat.com/forums/disneyland-resort/9078-dca-interesting-look-back-last-4-years.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.66.111 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Clairifying Golden State area

The existing article states the the Golden State area is divided into 3 sub-lands. I actually believe that per the park brochures and maps from opening till now, Golden State has 5 sub-lands. These include:

1. Condor Flats
2. Golden Vine Winery
3. Grizzly Peak Recreation Area
4. Pacific Wharf
5. The Bay Area

  • I think that the Bay Area gets grouped with the Pacific Wharf as the area is fairly small, and serves as a transition between Grizzly Peak and the Route 66 area of Paradise Pier. Golden Vine Winery is part of Robert Mondavi's Seasons of the Vine --Randomgbear 17:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Lets see... The Golden state area is primarily the corridor that leads between Sunshine Plaza and the rear of the park. It doesn't include the Pacific wharf area, but it does include Condor Flats, Grizzly Peak, and the Winery, which isn't actually a sub-land, but an attraction--Vercalos 06:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"Rumors Of Expansion And Current Changes" Section

Is it just me, or is the last section a little odd and out of place? It has many misspellings, and seems to have an "insider view" without any real references. It referes to people by their first name and talks about trivila changes that surely haven't been released to the public, if they even exist. --kralahome 03:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clean up that section tonight (it's my first wiki edit, so please excuse me if I did it incorrectly) and completely agree with you. I'm a hardcore Disneyland/DCA insider fan and I've never heard some of that information, while I believe other parts to be falsified. However, I'm not going to remove it until I have further evidence to back it up. I did clean up the spelling/grammar to some sort of readable text though. -Shinku Hisaki 04:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Man.. There is a lot of speculation, without any confirmation, there as well.. And while some of it is believable, I can't really believe that they're going to install a ride specifically to see outside the park, or, moreso, actually charge for said ride, especially considering when it comes to anything to do with entertainment, everything is paid for at admission, so you can watch any of the shows or ride any of the rides without any additional charges.. Also, Disney's policy has often been to make it so you cannot see outside the park from anywhere inside it, though it seems that California Adventure has made exceptions to this rule with California Screamin, Maliboomer, and the Sunwheel, so they might just do it.. I work inside the park and I haven't heard of any of this.. The only remodling I know of is of Pirates of the Carribean in Disneyland.. Of course, this may just be that Disney hasn't informed cast members yet.--Vercalos 07:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Honestly, I could do without this section altogether. There are always a million rumors about what Disney might do with the theme parks. And more often than not, they turn out to be completely false or based on early concepts already obsolete/disgarded by the time they're revealed. It seems to me that sticking to including only the expansion plans Disney has officially announced would make this article more "encyclopedia" and less "tabloid"... I agree. If there is no objection to the deletion of this section by July 6, 2006, then I will delete.--kralahome 01:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC) I went ahead and edited out the incorrect information, and left one paragraph, which I edited with up to date information. -- 18:33, 5 July 2006 The "Placemaking Projects" added on December 8 by 71.193.60.47 seem to be in a similar vein. I personally think it should just be deleted, but I put an "unsourced" tag on it in case anyone can actually confirm any of it. The claim about something happening by 2010 seems particularly questionable, considering Disney often seems to change its plans on much shorter time scales. --70.231.117.195 16:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

What does this sentence mean? "On the other hand, unoffficial sources has the one day, one park ticket sells for Disneyland at around 15%."

I'm not sure. Maybe that that the Disneyland only passes are 15% of the total sales of single passes? The passage should be removed, or replaced with a cite-able source.--Vercalos 08:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Park's Icon's

I think there should be a mention of the parks icons like the Grizzly Peak as well as the Sun located at the back end of the opening land.

DCA

Maybe there should be some mention that the park is often referred to by it initials as "DCA", for Disney's California Advneture. 67.120.74.232 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's referred to as DCA several times in the article but there's nothing explicitly stating that DCA=Disney's California Adventure.--Vercalos 03:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Toy Story Mania!

In a Disneyland Resort Press Release dated Janaury 26th, 2007 titled "The Year of a Million Dreams Means New Fun & Adventures at Disneyland Resort", says this about the new ride >>Disney*Pixar characters will also appear in a new Disney's California Adventure attraction, scheduled to open in 2008. Construction has already begun on "Toy Story Mania!" in the Paradise Pier district of the park. It will mark the first time an attraction has been designed and built simultaneously at Disneyland Resort and at Walt Disney World, where "Toy Story Mania!" will open at the Disney-MGM Studios. The attraction will have a 2008 opening at both the California and Florida parks. "Toy Story Mania!" will set a new standard for the interactive ride/game technology pioneered in the "Buzz Lightyear Astro Blasters" attraction. Guests of all ages will don 3-D glasses and hop into fancifully decorated "Toy Story Mania!" vehicles. While riding along a colorful, midway-themed route, they will shoot at animated targets using their own "toy cannons," scoring points in a series of energetic, fun gaming sequences featuring Woody, Bo Peep and the rest of the gang from Toy Story.<< It is clear that the exclamation point is part of the official name to the attraction.

Article is not very encyclopaedic or universally relevant.

I'm sorry, but as with many other Wikipedia pages of topics with large fan bases, this article is a bit masturbative. It disguises itself as encyclopaedic through its relatively formal tone, but underneath that veneer it is little more than a summary of frustrated fan forum posts. Please realise that this article is meant for the real world, not LaughingMicePlanetMedia.com or whatever. Problems include: -Peacock words, weasel words and other flowery language "Paradise Pier is the part of the park that looks most impressive from a distance" "Disney opened the park with high hopes" -The criticism section. Who's saying all these things? References please. It may also be far too long for its subject matter (the criticism of a theme park--the article that covers the criticism on the Bush administration is shorter). -Unverifiable, rant-like speculation: "There is now talk that the new Carsland would be moved to the Timon Parking Lot and the A Bugs Land area would be demolshed to make way for the entrance to Carsland." What is this, Liz Smith's column? Tomsintown 00:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

May 2007 edits to this page

Someone is constantly changing the main page and making incorrect statements. I don't understand the need for these changes, and looks like the person is trying to just make the park sound better and is removing criticism. For example, the person adds "It's a popular ride among visitors" to the description of Soarin', but removes the comment about that critics think that Golden Dreams is inaccurate. Other clearly bias comments included a comment about the fact that the original park had "family-friendly" rides, when a major criticism of the park that it didn't have family-friendly rides, and was one of the reasons that A Bug's Land was added later. Another change is trying to call Maliboomer a Drop Tower. Maliboomer is a S&S Space Shot that shoots people UP in the air. A drop tower takes persons up slowly, and then drops them. The S&S version is called a Turbo Drop, which is offered at Knott's Berry Farm (Supreme Scream). Another issue is removing the description of "shopping mall" from the use of the Downtown Disney District. Most general folks have no idea what the Downtown Disney District is, so letting folks know that it is a shopping mall is helpful, but this person feels the need to remove it.

First...Soarin' anyone would agree is arguably the most popular attraction at DCA, as stated in the soarin article here at wikipedia. However, The Golden Dream statement even if true is not verifiable. As stated in the second paragraph, the line up is different, still most of the park at the beggining had rides for the whole family, there was not even one ride exclusively for the kid, since even the jumpin jellyfish or carousel could be ridden by adults. As stated it featured adult oriented thrill rides and rides for the family. I think you are confusing a Drop Tower attraction (as a general type of ride) with the specific Turbo Drop ride manufactured by S&S, like the Supreme Scream. The Space shot is a type of Drop Tower attraction. please refer to the manufacturers website and to the article at wiki. For the Downtown Disney issue, for Disney is not a mall, is an entertainment and shopping districs. However, there is a link for the Downtown Disney article there. This is not a fanpage, and the intention is to make this more interesting to the general audience as an encyclopedia article, not an anti DCA article. If you please, make an article specifically for the criticism to DCA, but in the article of the park all of this is out of place, since the purpose is to give information about the park, not to show what you think or why do you dislike the park.

Regarding changes of May 2007

This article really needs improvement and I've tried to do this, however some people simply wont let it. As someone said before, this article is not about criticisms, it's about general information of the park and the article is mainly about why some people think this park is bad, since the criticism section takes more than half the article. It would be great if someone took the time to make an article about criticism. Take the George W. Bush article, for example, just look at the criticism section and it's a lot shorter that DCA, However, there an article about Criticism of George W. Bush (which is still smaller). I'd like to completely restructure this article based on the Disneyland article, which is way better than this one, and simplify the criticism section into a couple of paragraphs, just the things that the general audience need to know, and not how many times the price has been changed or emphasizing on elements that are disliked by a specific audience. Without a doubt, Disneyland Park has gained way more criticism during it's 52 years than DCA, however there's not even a section for this in the mentioned article, since this is of little or no interest to the general audience that just need information about what the park is, like in a typical encyclopedia article, where only the relevant information must be present. Enough people have made comments in this discussion page with the intention to improve the article so please let this changes and focus only on relevant and verifiable information about DCA. All together we must have a clear purpose and contribute to make it better. --189.156.182.112 08:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already edited the first part of the article...Looking forward to make more of the mentioned changes--189.156.182.112 07:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I´m still working in the layout section, and the criticism...and again, anyone, if you please make an article about criticism....about some changes that are being made...the statement about soarin'...don´t think that´s peacock, since it´s a Fastpass attraction...it´s understood that the popular attractions are the ones that use this service...Also, Downtown Disney (California) here you can see how not even once is refered to as a Mall...that´s too standard...not a mall....as described by they, is a shopping and entertainment district...if anyone doesn't know what Downtown Disney is, there's a link. --189.156.182.112 18:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But we don't say that each FASTPASS attraction is a popular attraction, or that it has FASTPASS (there is a seperate section for it). As for Downtown Disney, it is a "Shoppertainment Mall", a term used for places like Universal CityWalk and Ontario Mills, a place that offers more than just shoping and dining, but the area is a shopping mall, plain and simple, just like any other area designed for folks to walk around and basically shop.

Again, Downtown Disney is not a mall...please, before editing again take the time to read about what a Shopping mall is. [1] here´s one non wiki article that describes Soarin' as one of the most popular attractions of the park, and here Soarin' Over California is described as one of the most visited attractions at the entire resort. Also, the bugs land thing, that's not relevant as information of the park, and even if, just get one way to prove it true, and there stays. For the fouth or fifth time, plase make an article about DCA's critisicsm, since many of your editing is only trully peacock, unverifiable and subjective critisicsm as well as a lot of innacuracies based on what you think/know. Please, let the improvement of this article as it is really needed.--189.156.182.112 17:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems that one man's "unverifiable and subjective critisicsm" is another's neutral point-of-view.➪HiDrNick! 10:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
That´s obvious, but due to the nature of the information about this theme park and the different opinions about it would end in an edit war...what we have to do here is to rely only in trully verifiable information. This would never end.--189.156.182.112 00:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dedication section

Yesterday I removed the "dedication" section from the article. I was reverted upon and admonished to take this to the talk page, so here I am. It seems like an obvious improvement. The article already reads like a fan site, so why not clean it up a bit? Perhaps we can find a better spot for it, if people fell that strongly about keeping it, but it reads like a Disney brochure, not an encyclopedia article. ➪HiDrNick! 06:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If it resembles a fansite is an Antifan site...every article of each Disney theme park shows the dedication, it´s not fan stuff, is part of the information of the park, and I don´t see why it shouldn't be there.--189.156.182.112 21:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent Changes

Wow, I took a look at this article a few days ago and it was horrible! I was too lazy to sign in but I did edit a lot of the descriptions of the lands and improved things a bit. Thanks to who ever added those images :-) More images could improve the article in some sections, keep the dedication, and please replace that badly put together picture of Paradise Pier. I would do it myself but I dont edit much and dont know how.

Move Lands to main DCA page

Wouldnt it be better to move all the separate DCA land articles (Paradise Pier, Golden State, ect) to the main DCA article? Just a suggestion.

Condor Flats

While most of California's aircraft industry is based in the Mojave, the actual theme for Condor Flats is farther north.--Vercalos 05:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources

This articles sources a very weak. The second source is that of a blog and according to Wikipedia's standards blogs are not allowed as sources. This article needs more verifiable sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richandler86 (talk • contribs).

Yes, you are correct, would you mind marking the areas which you believe a source/reference would be helpful or needed. See WP:FACT. Thanks. Tiggerjay 06:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Eletrical Light Parade - Hiatus

To the editor who is continuing to post that the ELP is on Hiatus, please see the DCA Entertainment Listing. If the attraction was on hiatus, it would not be listed. It is, however not being run nightly due to seasonal closures - which is very different then a hiatus. :) Also, since I've got your attention (editor), please note that your other edits were reverted because they were commentary/discussion within an article and partially contained Original Research. I hope you understand, and can make appropriate corrections. Thanks. Tiggerjay 08:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:33293852.jpg

Image:33293852.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

PR Copy?

The new information about changes planned for 2007-08 is being presented in a promotional fashion. The language is not neutral, so I'm letting folks know that it could use some attention. I'll try to improve it myself when I have a chance. This section could be supplemented with information about when certain rides or attractions will be closed to visitors. Pschelden 09:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with this editor, but I am not all sure how to fix it. Anything on wikipedia that talks about a company will always sound like a promotion. It could use much more citations. L.A. Times would be great for it.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Crush's Coaster?

I was just wondering.... where did you get the Millionaire building being turned into Crush's Coaster. Disney never announced it. I researched it and it is just a rumor. Can you please cite this? Otherwise is it safe to delete it? Bellagio2 (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move

Disney's California Adventure Park → Disney 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

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

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

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

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

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 Park → California 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)
  • no Disagree - "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?

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: [2]. --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: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], or these from page 10 [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] 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

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

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

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)

  1. ^ Archived D-I-G Update: 6/25
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disney_California_Adventure/Archive_1&oldid=1136664887"