Talk:Disney's California Adventure
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Disney on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
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)
Contents |
[edit] "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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] "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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
