Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indiana Jones Adventure (expose)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 20:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Indiana Jones Adventure (expose)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. Even though this article may be different than Indiana Jones Adventure, it contains nothing that cannot be included in that article. This page thus constitutes a duplication of topic and therefore a violation of WP:CFORK per its very existence. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 12:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is allowed under WP:CFORK. It represents a separate topic, that of the ride system shared by three attractions and containing similar elements to two others - backstage, hidden, effects, operation and secrets of the two attractions Indiana Jones Adventure and Indiana Jones Adventure (Tokyo) that are not the guest experience nor the attractions themselves. The article is not a duplicate. The separate topic is referenced by elements of both articles.
 * Separate Topic

Retain this article to preserve the various spoilers and revealing details. If that can not be done, userify it to me. After careful consideration this method was chosen rather than expanding the bottom of Indiana Jones Adventure because it contains 'separate topics' relevant to both attractions, and preventing broken internal #name links. A daughter article also allows the separate topic information to be presented as well as allowing those readers who wish to temporarily suspend their disbelief to not read the spoilers until they have experienced the attraction for themselves.

With an allowed daughter article it is possible to retain these spoilers that would otherwise be lost if the article were simply deleted. KEEP Disneywizard (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The Enhanced Motion Vehicle should be a candidate for spinning off into an additional article. This would isolate the patent and operational details without spoiling the four articles that would reference it:
 * Additional daughter article -> EMV*
 * Dinosaur (Disney's Animal Kingdom)
 * Indiana Jones Adventure (expose) What would be a better name for this topic? EMV ride systems?
 * Indiana Jones Adventure (Tokyo)
 * Indiana Jones Adventure
 * and very similar to


 * Rocket Rods XPR
 * GM Test Track
 * Journey to the Center of the Earth (attraction)

Disneywizard (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I tried redirecting this to Indiana Jones Adventure before, since this essentially duplicates that article. There's no reason any additional information can't be included in the other article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - When you redirected, you lost HUGE amounts of information that applies to three separate and distinct attractions.

DO NOT REDIRECT! READ BOTH PAGES CAREFULLY! THEY ARE NOT DUPLICATES! THEY ARE NOT CONTENT FORKS! THEY ARE SEPARATE TOPICS
This article Indiana Jones Adventure (expose) contains accurate details describing the construction, operation, methods and effects of the Indiana Jones Adventure. An appeal is made to allow the inclusion of this carefully considered spoiler page, in this special case. The main page, over the years, had evolved into a jumbled collection of facts, in distracting random order, and someone had ERRONEOUSLY merged a similar attraction in Tokyo. The expose page allows all of that superfluous information to be retained and neatly organized. It does not offer contested information, nor a conflicting point of view nor criticism. Both the parent article and the daughter article include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions. The original article contains a neutral summary of this daughter article. The daughter article is referenced by three similar attraction articles and explains effects common to them.

Case in point example - Three different railroads operate locomotives of the same class. That locomotive article stands separately. If each railroad company makes modifications, then the question becomes "Where does one describe those differences, in each railroad article (I would think), in the locomotive class article, or both? But one does not destroy the locomotive article because it is a duplicate to the three railroads. This effort is equivalent of spinning off the railroads and engines from their erroneous inclusion in Track.

This extraction and subsequent expansion follows closely the difficult separation of Indiana Jones Adventure (Tokyo), allows clarification of the original essay, allows reference by Dinosaur (Disney's Animal Kingdom), Indiana Jones Adventure (Tokyo),, Rocket Rods XPR, GM Test Track, Journey to the Center of the Earth (attraction) and the spin off of Enhanced_motion_vehicle - which is common to five attractions and similar to three others, without wiping out ESSENTIAL details shared by all. Disneywizard Disneywizard (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

From the attraction page

 * The transport then approaches a dark area and stops. Indiana Jones™ suddenly appears in a shaft of sunlight, hanging from a rope above the vehicle.

"The Basket Game", 3:51 (Raiders of the Lost Ark)


 * He welcomes the adventurers rescue and bids us to turn on the headlights and prepare for boarding. The light illuminates a massive 16-foot (4.9 m) boulder, rolling toward the transport. The transport backs up a bit, as the boulder threatens to crush Jones and the adventurers. Suddenly the floor gives way at the last possible moment and the transport accelerates into the chamber below. A tremendous impact echoes, as if the boulder had crashed down nearly striking the transport. (spoiler)

This is a present tense contemporary topic from the rider's perspective. The rolling boulder doesn't move, the vehicle approaches it slowly. The vehicle never actually backs up, it can not, that would destroy the electrical power wipers on the guide beam beneath the slot. The floor never "gives way" because the room MOVES AWAY FROM THE VIEWER giving the illusion that the boulder is rolling through it. And in classic magical misdirection, while the attention is on the flashing focal point of the boulder no one notices that the chassis is proceeding DOWN past the crest of the track as the body lifts in compensation. The apparent motion is enhanced by the vehicle program shaking the FEELING of backing up, all the while moving forward as the room moves away. It is SO convincing that it should remain in print that way, as it has been written here since the beginning. Compare with the daughter article, which is all past tense, from the "beneath the track" point of view, and relates to three different, but similar attractions.

From the (expose) page

 * The rolling boulder doesn't move, the boulder is fixed in place and only rolls. The illusion is supported by the car slowly moving forward while Indy, the rope he is hanging on, and the entire room moves away from the viewer, at the speed of the boulder approach, giving the appearance of the boulder moving forward as the troop transport "backs up". One can verify this by looking at the floor during this scene, as well as by the "epiphany shot," from cinema, of zooming out while trucking in. To see the epiphany shot, simply turn around and look backward as this scene activates. The boulder is static and stationary as it rotates and provides plenty of clearance as the car elevates the load and the carriage descends on it's slow approach, keeping tall guests outstretched arms well outside a buffer zone.

They are clearly quite different points of view, allowed by WP:CFORK. Perhaps renaming the article to reflect the identical spoilers of all three adventures would work. What would be a better name? Disneywizard (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, where does any Wikipedia policy or guideline allow POV articles? Woogee (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right (sheepish grin) I misinterpreted WP:CFORK and after going back and re-reading it carefully I understand where I am in err. I will merge them. Give me a few days please. Disneywizard (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternative to a second page was considered unsuitable.
Originally I considered separating the spoiler information to a new "Spoiler" section expanded below the main article. Because of the organization of the information, that would duplicated headers, breakng #links. After careful consideration of the benefits and "pitfalls" of expanding the spoiler beneath the main article, I concluded that, like the extraction of the Tokyo adventure, an additional page was in order. This has the advantage that both attractions can reference the spoiler page to describe identical special effects. Disneywizard (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps renaming the article to reflect the identical spoilers of all three adventures would work. What would be a better name? Disneywizard (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a badly written, unnecessary content fork with too much duplication of Indiana Jones Adventure material. Anything relevant can be merged into the original article.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as per above reasons, and I also feel that the article is representative of a "fandom" intent instead of a strictly informative intent. 65.184.233.253 (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.