Talk:Disneyland Railroad/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposed merge with Primeval World

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article is unsourced, and a large portion of it violates WP:NOT. What little salvageable content there is should be merged with Disneyland Railroad and Western River Railroad pbp 18:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge The Primeval World retains its own notability and if sources are not in the article, they can be obtained very easily. JOJ ^Hutton 22:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll believe that when I see it. The onus is on you to find them; until you do, it fails GNG. And my comment about large portions of the article violating WP:NOT stands. Furthermore, failing GNG or not is irrelevant to a merge; articles that pass the GNG are not immune to merger pbp 23:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support The article is not notable enough to stand on its own, however could be merged into Disney Railroad if we could find some sources, if any. Zach Vega (talk to me) 00:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• Reopened discussion it's not really appropriate for the person making the proposal to decide consensus. As far as sources are concerned I have found several. I just haven't had computer time to transfer them into the article. Will do so this weekend if the family doesn't dominate my computer. JOJ ^Hutton 19:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but the discussion has gone a week, and a majority of editors agree that, even if sources are added, the content should still be merged. As such, it was perfectly acceptable to be closed by anyone. You are alone in believing that, sources or no, it deserves its own article, and if you want to add sources, they'll have to be added here, because Primeval World is not going to be kept as an article. Please stop the disruptive stonewalling pbp 19:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lilly Belle tours restriction

I was told the new restrictions are to help preserve the carpet which is all that is left from Walt's apartment. It'll wear out anyway, but not as soon. Eeekster (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Attraction or Railroad infobox

Should there be an attraction or railroad infobox? The WDW Railroad has an attraction infobox. Hawkeye75 (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Fundamentally, the Disneyland Railroad is both a railroad and an attraction. Serious rail enthusiasts would probably see it first and foremost as a railroad, but I believe that a general audience would see it as an attraction. I would argue that an attraction infobox would be most appropriate. And like many of the other Disney railroad attractions, the railroad-specific attributes such as track length and guage, can be provided via custom values in the infobox.Scott Roy Atwood (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Support - The Railroad is an attraction in a theme park. Hawkeye75 (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:OSE is not, on its own, a valid argument. To a 'general audience', it does not make a difference, as readers do not see the infobox name when viewing Wikipedia. Conversely, attraction-specific attributes can be provided via custom values in the railroad infobox. I see no reason to change the article as it stands. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 19:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC

The rail infobox does not have custom values in its syntax. Hawkeye75 (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As a railroad, the Disneyland railroad is an extremely atypical example, as it doesn't really move goods or passengers around, except within the quite confined borders of the Disneyland theme park. As an attraction, it is quite typical, and the general audience is more likely to categorize it along with Big Thunder Mountain rather than Burlington Northern. Far more of the attraction infobox parameters are salient than rail infobox parameters. I would strongly support using the attraction Infobox rather than the rail infobox, and incorporate rail infobox specific parameters such as gauge and length as custom parameters. Scott Roy Atwood (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)