Template talk:Infobox Disney theme park

use of "location" field
there have been many, many, many weeks of arguments and discussions surrounding the placement of specific WDW-related articles in a specific municipality in the body of the articles and/or in the infobox. Discussions ranging from "orlando", to "bay lake" to "lake buena vista" to "reedy creek" and so forth. What has been proposed is keeping all municipality/county info in the main Walt Disney World Resort article -- where the history and placement of WDW, along with the creation of those cities can be appropriately documented -- and have all WDW-related articles merely point to their location as being at the Walt Disney World Resort itself. Those who want more info can have it in conjunction with the WDWR history. The question is how would this format affect all the other parks if this method was used elsewhere? The full discussion is being archived over at Talk:Walt Disney World Resort, please join us there if you have an opinion or can otherwise add to the conversation. SpikeJones (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Template modifications
I've started a thread on the talk page for the Disney WP about modifying this template to remove the "Location" field, leaving only the "Resort" field, which will link back to the theme park's parent article (e.g., the article for its resort complex), which will then mention the city/state/departement/prefecture/etc. where the resort is located). Please let your opinion be heard here or there. Thanks. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Coord field?
Perhaps a coordinates field could be added instead of a location field? --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 16:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I could go for a coordinate field instead ... but what would be the common point for each park? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * GNIS data could be used. Obtaining geographic coordinates probably explains it better than I ever could. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 17:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think most of the park articles have coordinates in them already, in the upper-right corner of the page. I think we could just enter those into a Coordinates field for now, but at the same time I'm concerned that there's another overriding WP convention that has the coordinates in their current location. Any ideas? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Starting discussion again
With the creation of the new infobox came the return of the redundant "location" field. Why is it redundant? Because the "resort" field gives the location of the Disney resort where the park is located, and the article for the parent resort includes the geographic information for the resort (which would, naturally, be identical for the parks themselves). If someone could provide a reason why we need two fields in the infobox providing essentially the same information, then we could have a debate on which format (with "location" field and without) is better. So please, feel free to comment! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Given the limited scope of this template, can we just merge it with Infobox amusement park? Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bring back an old discussion but I think this template could be integrated into Infobox amusement park provided two fields were added. The amusement park template would require the addition of a resort parameter and a theme parameter. Both of these parameters could be used outside of the scope of just Disney articles (e.g. "resort = Universal Orlando Resort" for Islands of Adventure & Universal Studios Florida and "theme = Movie studio" for places like Warner Bros. Movie World etc). I'm willing to bring the discussion up on the amusement park infobox talk page but I thought I would continue it here. Themeparkgc   Talk  23:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)