This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Infobox Disney theme park redirect. |
|
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Infobox Disney theme park. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this redirect. You may wish to ask factual questions about Infobox Disney theme park at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Perhaps a coordinates field could be added instead of a location field? -- TorriTorri( Talk to me!) 16:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Infobox Disney theme park redirect. |
|
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Infobox Disney theme park. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this redirect. You may wish to ask factual questions about Infobox Disney theme park at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Perhaps a coordinates field could be added instead of a location field? -- TorriTorri( Talk to me!) 16:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
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)