Talk:The Barnstormer

"The Great Goofini" is not yet open

This article is presented as if The Great Goofini has already been opened, even though it has not. It contains content mostly related to the former attraction, even though it is named for the upcoming one. I feel that this article should be restored to its previous format as an article about the former attraction, The Barnstormer at Goofy's Wiseacre Farm. When The Great Goofini does open, it certainly would warrant its own separate article. Or, a separate article could be made for it now. I am proposing two possible options for this article:

Restore this article's former name, organization, content and infobox so that it continues to be an article about The Barnstormer at Goofy's Wiseacre Farm. And...

1. Wait until The Great Goofini opens to create a new article when more information about this new attraction is available. Because this current article contains information about the closure of The Barnstormer at Goofy's Wiseacre Farm and the changes that it is experiencing as part of the ongoing Fantasyland expansion, it would continue to be a sufficient source of information until that time when it does open. Or...
2. Create a new article for The Great Goofini now with a brief history of The Barnstormer at Goofy's Wiseacre Farm along with Disney's plans for the former attraction and information available on its transition to the Great Goofini. However, some technical information could not be included because the attraction has not yet opened. More information would be added as it becomes available.

Please weigh in on this with your comments. I thank you very much for your time. Jclavet (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I am going to move ahead with the second option I proposed above. Jclavet (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have created the new article for The Great Goofini here. More information should be added as it becomes available. Jclavet (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of some copied content from this article

The article The Great Goofini was created using some copied content from this article. Please see this article's history for attribution. Jclavet (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This no longer applies as the articles have now been merged. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Why split and duplicate articles?

About a week or so ago, I moved this article (The Barnstormer at Goofy's Wiseacre Farm) to The Great Goofini due to the retheming that the ride is currently undergoing. I also provided a major expansion to the article in this edit. The process of moving an old ride's article to the rethemed article's location is standard (e.g. check the move histories of Superman: Escape from Krypton, Tower of Terror II, Green Lantern (Six Flags Great Adventure) and more) - except for Disney articles. Just recently my move was reverted and replaced by a split article with a large amount of duplicated content. This is the second pair of articles I have come across has done this and doesn't follow the standard of moving to the rethemed ride's name (Mulholland Madness and Goofy's Sky School being the other pair). When the original article is a stub anyway and all of its content can be represented in a section of the new article, why split and duplicate them? These are roller coasters - the roller coaster isn't actually changing - only the theme. I feel previous attraction themes can be represented in a history section. I propose that The Great Goofini should be deleted as a duplicate article, to make way for this article to be moved there. I also propose the same be done for Mulholland Madness and Goofy's Sky School. What does everyone else think? Split and duplicate or move and merge? Themeparkgc  Talk  22:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

First off, I apologize if I caused any issues by splitting and duplicating the two articles. A week after starting the discussion on this talk page without comments from another user, I decided to be bold and simply split and duplicate.

Perhaps it would help me to express my opinion on this matter by sharing some examples and how I would feel they be treated:

• Test Track and World of Motion Being entirely unique attraction concepts and only slightly related to each other, these attractions certainly merit their own separate articles.

• The Seas with Nemo & Friends and The Living Seas As is evident from this article's talk page, there has been much debate as to how the articles for this pavilion and its attractions should be treated. I believe that because the attraction and its theme remained essentially consistent (underwater exploration, only now with the omnipresence of Nemo and his friends), the former and current attractions which existed at the pavilion belong in a single article.

As to how I think the articles currently being discussed should be treated...

• The Great Goofini and The Barnstormer at Goofy's Wiseacre Farm I truly believe that this could go either way. However, there is an obvious difference in theme between the two attractions. With the new theme comes a new story being told, a new guest experience, and yes, new magic being made. I believe that these articles should remain separate. When The Great Goofini does open, I hope that new information will be added to expand the article and that it would become apparent why it warrants its own separate article. However, if you feel strongly about this, I would love to collaborate with you on the merger of these two articles. Ideally, I think that the two attractions should share the spotlight in a merged article, rather than The Barnstormer taking a backseat.

• Goofy's Sky School and Mulholland Madness My approach to these two articles would be very different than my approach to the above two. Because the article for Goofy's Sky School is so short, I would actually merge that article into Mulholland Madness and include its information in a new section until enough information becomes available to create its own article. (Aside from that, I think it might be nice for an article to be made to house information on "Former Attractions at Disney California Adventure". There certainly are enough to fill an article's worth.)

Thank you. —Jclavet (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, sorry Jclavet I hadn't seen your message until today and it seemed like you had posted it and then just completed the split instantly.

As for Test Track/World of Motion, they both have detailed, distinct content - thus they should be split (as they are). The articles in question here are all stubs with some duplicated content between them (especially Barnstormer/Goofini). I agree with your statement that Barnstormer/Goofini should share the spotlight in a merged article, however, since Barnstormer is a former attraction and Goofini is a future attraction I think that Goofini should be the main subject. I don't see a point in keeping Barnstormer as the subject when it doesn't exist anymore. I feel the main focus of the merged article should be what it will be (i.e. Goofini).

I feel the same way about Goofy's Sky School / Mulholland Madness. Sky School is a month away from opening - Mulholland has been closed for more than 6 months now. Sky School should be the main subject of a merged article with a section on the previous theme of Mulholland Madness. As noted on that article's talk page another user had expressed concern about the merging of these two articles. They stated that the former attraction does not lose notability and thus shouldn't be merged together.

In both of these cases, regardless of each attraction's notability, they are all stub level articles. I don't see any point in splitting a stub into two stubs. The ride system is the same in both cases, with the theme being the only thing changing. In regards with time (i.e. the attraction will open in the future and until that point the article should remain as is), an example is Green Lantern (Six Flags Great Adventure) which was moved from Chang (roller coaster) in September last year. Green Lantern isn't due to open until Memorial Day Weekend yet it was moved without complaint then.

As for an article like List of former Disney California Adventure Park attractions, would this really have enough information? In my eyes, the only former attraction (that I can think of) is Maliboomer because all of the other attractions have just been rethemed and information already exists in their replacement's articles.

Finally, another couple of Disney examples where the articles have been merged. Sun Wheel = Mickey's Fun Wheel. Orange Stinger = Silly Symphony Swings. I don't see why these should be any different. Thanks if you've read through all of this. Themeparkgc  Talk  08:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the user who posted this:

“ When a Disney attraction space is redesigned and rethemed with new content, as is happening with Mulholland Madness' retheming into Goofy's Sky School, does the notability of the defunct attraction expire? Probably not... and the new ride, once it acquires reliable sources, is likely to merit its own separate treatment. Inheriting the old attraction's physical space doesn't necessarily mean it should inherit its old Wikipedia namespace. See Star Tours and Star Tours: The Adventures Continue for a similar case. Or Submarine Voyage and Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage. ” — AtticusX (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

, Talk:Mulholland Madness#Goofy's Sky School should stay as a separate article

However, your response made me realize that you and I may be seeing these subjects of debate as two entirely different things:

“ Well I requested it be moved because this is the process undertaken with all roller coaster articles. All of the information about a previous theme (or location etc) is included within a history section in the article. I thought the same would be applied here. If they must stay separate, I'll do a bit of work on the Goofy's Sky School article shortly. ” — Talk:Mulholland Madness#Goofy's Sky School should stay as a separate article

I believe that you are seeing these rides as roller coasters, while I am seeing them as Disney attractions. The other roller coaster examples that you gave me do not truly have any theme to speak of. While The Barnstormer and Mulholland Madness are nothing close to Disney's finest, they still tell a story far different from their successors, and their new themes will create a different guest experience. Because of this difference between roller coasters and Disney attractions, I also feel that the infoboxes in these articles should be using WikiProject Disney's Infobox Disney ride template.

I cannot speak for the others, but I would certainly contest your statement that The Barnstormer article is a stub. Here is Wikipedia's definition of a stub from Wikipedia:Stub:

“ A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which — though providing some useful information — is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, and which is capable of expansion. Sizable articles are usually not considered stubs, even if they lack wikification or copy editing. ”

The Barnstormer at Goofy's Wiseacre Farm is definitely more than a few sentences of text and I believe it does provide encyclopedic coverage. When Goofy's Sky School and The Great Goofini open, I would hope that enough information is available that the articles become as long as The Branstormer's, or longer.

Thank you. —Jclavet (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm just curious as to your opinion on the following pairs of articles which have been merged together: Sun Wheel and Mickey's Fun Wheel; Orange Stinger and Silly Symphony Swings.

The second point I'd like to make is in regards with the infoboxes. The roller coaster infobox is an intricate template which contains a variety of automatically applied categories depending on the values entered in the infobox. The Disney ride infobox has no automatic categorisation. All of the information that would be presented in the Disney ride infobox (and more) can easily be presented in the roller coaster infobox. Parameters like audio-animatronics, host and music are not present in the infobox but could easily be represented using the range of custom_label/value parameters. To a standard reader of Wikipedia, they probably wouldn't know the different between any of these infoboxes unless they hit the edit button.

As for stubs, WP:STUB also states the following:

“ There is no set size at which an article stops being a stub. [...] articles may still be stubs even if they are a few paragraphs long. As such, it is impossible to state whether an article is a stub based solely on its length, and any decision on the article has to come down to an editor's best judgement. ”

Before I expanded Barnstormer and moved it to Goofini this is how it looked. In my opinion it was a stub.

Now back to the topic at hand, if the articles must stay separated they need to have sufficient, non-duplicated content that justifies this. If you think that each can have sufficient content that is not duplicated, then I guess they can stay split, but at the moment the only section of the Barnstormer article that is different is the Story section (which was to be expected since Goofini hasn't opened yet). The rest is duplicated and I personally can't see the point of this. I will tag The Great Goofini with {{Db-a10}} in about a week if my concern hasn't been addressed. For now I've tagged it with {{duplication}}. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

First off, thanks for cleaning up my block quotes. And, after further thought, I have abandoned my idea for the "Former Attractions at Disney California Adventure" article. As you said, enough coverage exists elsewhere.

Secondly, I agree that the Sun Wheel and Mickey's Fun Wheel articles should have been merged along with the Orange Stinger and Silly Symphony Swings articles, seeing as there is not enough information to support separate articles.

If you look above, I originally proposed two options. The first simply being that the focus of the article be shifted back to The Barnstormer and that the creation of a separate Goofini article come later when more information was available. The second was that the two articles be split at the current time and more information added to the Goofini article as it becomes available. After no comments from other users, I simply chose the second option.

I will soon begin work on a merged Barnstormer and Goofini article in my sandbox and post the link here when I am finished. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on it.

Thank you. —Jclavet (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about merged article

I have completed the draft of a merged version of the two articles. It can be found in my sandbox here. Please tell me what you think.

Thank you. —Jclavet (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that, in order to prevent the sandbox page from being automatically added to categories, I could not include the infobox for The Barnstormer. I planned for this to appear below the infobox for The Great Goofini. This, along with the other category information normally located below the references, must be added before publication.

Thank you. —Jclavet (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have had a look through your sandboxed article and have made a few small changes. Generally they are all in regards with the ride (the roller coaster) being exactly the same. I've moved the Ride section out of the Barnstormer section because it will be identical to what the Goofini will offer. I've changed the tense appropriately.

The other comment I'd like to make is in regards with the infobox. I don't see why two infoboxes should be included. I'll draft up a combined infobox in my userspace which I'll link to shortly. Other than that I'd be happy if this was in the article space now. Regards Themeparkgc  Talk  23:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's my proposed merged infobox. It is based upon the roller coaster infobox with the use of the extend template of it. What do you think? Themeparkgc  Talk  23:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I agree with the wording of "The Barnstormer at Goofy's Wiseacre Farm was an identical junior roller coaster [...]" as they will not be identical because of their difference in theme. I think a different word should be chosen, but I'm not sure which word.

As for the infoboxes, it is customary for rethemed Disney attractions to have separate infoboxes. Take a look at Universe of Energy and Journey into Imagination with Figment. In this case, I think it would be appropriate for The Great Goofini to have the more detailed infobox using the roller coaster template, and The Barnstormer to have the shorter infobox using the Disney ride template.

Thank you. —Jclavet (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your cut-paste move as per WP:CUTPASTE and requested speedy deletion of Goofini so this page can be moved there and updated with the content of your sandbox. I agree with having Goofini as the roller coaster infobox at the top and the Barnstormer as the Disney infobox at the bottom. I'll draft the two infoboxes in my userspace shortly. As for the wording at the start of the Barnstormer section I've changed it again. What do you think of it now? Themeparkgc  Talk  07:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The two separated infoboxes can be found here. Themeparkgc  Talk  08:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "The Great Goofini originally opened as The Barnstormer at Goofy's Wiseacre Farm [...]" because that makes it sound as if it was merely renamed. I think if we mentioned that the ride was re-themed to The Great Goofini in that section as well, it would be clearer.

Also, I don't think that "Agricultural aircraft" should be entered for the vehicle type in the Barnstormer infobox. I believe that field is usually reserved for the vehichle technology used, like Omnimover.

Furthermore, I would not object to the gallery being removed.

Thank you. —Jclavet (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I've made some more changes to the article in your sandbox. Have a read through it rather than looking at the last diff because it looks like I trashed it (which I didn't). I have distributed the images in the gallery section about a little. The pic of the sign in the infobox, the one of the barn in the history section and the one of the train itself in the ride section. Finally, I will remove Agricultural aircraft from the vehicle type in the infobox before it is published. Regards Themeparkgc  Talk  00:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Was the removal of the part about the attraction being named for one at the former Opryland park necessary? I thought that was an interesting fact that many people may be interested in. Also, I liked how the the history section, especially regarding the expansion, was worded before. I'd be happier with the previous revision.

I actually think that there may be too many pictures in the article, and I believe we should eliminate one. To me, it kind of looks cluttered. —Jclavet (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've brought back a reworded version of the Opryland statement with 3 references to support it. I've also removed one of the pictures and relocated the other. As for the expansion part of the history section I feel I have added a bit more flow to it. Before it seemed like "this happened, this will happen, oh and that happened too". I've also introduced a bit of context to it with a mention of D23. Finally, I've eliminated the quote from the Disney Parks Blog and the information about Dumbo (unrelated to the Barnstormer/Goofini). Hopefully this makes sense and you understand why I changed it. Regards Themeparkgc  Talk  08:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've made some minor edits and proposed a revision on the page. I brought back the quote, because on other pages, editors disputed the dates and updated it with inaccurate information. Once I added the quoted statement, these inaccurate revisions and disputes stopped. Thank you. —Jclavet (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your proposed revision paragraph and have removed my one from the sandbox. The only thing I'm a little concerned about is the section heading "Change to The Great Goofini (2011- )". How about "Transformation into The Great Goofini (2011-)"? Once Goofini opens this could be followed by a section entitled "The Great Goofini (2013-)" with details about its opening. Themeparkgc  Talk  02:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your new section title. I have changed this in my sandbox and made other minor edits. I added an additional reference for the opening date where the citation was needed. Is it now necessary to retain reference 5? Thank you. —Jclavet (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think keep reference 5. If there is ever any question over the verifiability of MousePlanet, the newspaper source should help a bit in verifiying the opening date. I think the draft is now good for publication. We just need to wait for the move discussion to be closed and the article moved. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for collaborating with me. I'm glad we could work on this together to create a suitable article! Jclavet (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Next article...? Themeparkgc  Talk  22:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if you're interested, I could use help modifying Template:Disney World resort. There's more information on that template's talk page, if you'd like to help.

Also, now that The Barnstormer's article has been deleted, should I delete the notices on this page which I posted regarding copied content? —Jclavet (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the duplicated section, added a comment in the other section and removed {{Copied}}. I will have a look at {{Disney World resort}} shortly. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. -- Hadal (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

---

The Barnstormer at Goofy's Wiseacre Farm → The Great Goofini –

• Move over redirect with minor history of duplicated content. Full discussion can be found here. Themeparkgc  Talk  08:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• And presumably, the existing The Great Goofini to The Great Goofini/version 2 or similar.

  But page The Barnstormer at Goofy's Wiseacre Farm seems to say that the ride The Barnstormer at Goofy's Wiseacre Farm was largely demolished and replaced by the ride The Great Goofini. If so, they are distinct rides and their articles should stay separate. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• The Great Goofini and The Barnstormer at Goofy's Wiseacre Farm are the exact same ride with only the theme being changed. As you can see in the section above there has been a pretty detailed discussion between Jclavet and I about these two articles. The plan is to replace the contents of this article (after it has been moved) with that currently contained in a user sandbox. Jclavet had done this earlier today however that was through a cut-paste move. Even though I supported the plan, I thought it should be done correctly through WP:RM. Themeparkgc  Talk  10:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• I wasn't trying to perform a cut-and-paste move. I was performing a merger according to the policy found at Wikipedia:Merging#Performing the merger. I'm not sure why my method was wrong, but we can move forward using your method. If that was the inappropriate method, please let me know why so that I know how to do it the right way in the future. It was my understanding that this would would be a merger. I thought a move was when you brought one article into a new name. I apologize for any inconvenience. —Jclavet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC).

• It's just that the whole article's edit history is in this article. Rather than making this article a redirect with all of its edit history, this page can be moved to its new location to keep its history. As Anthony said the current Goofini article that you created a few days ago will be moved to a version 2 subpage. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Some Disney attractions can use the same ride mechanism but have totally different guest experiences (e.g., Indiana Jones @ Disneyland vs. Dinosaur @ Animal Kingdom). Others can use the same ride mechanism and be pretty much identical except for theming. I believe both Mulholland Madness/Goofy's Sky School and this coaster fall into that latter category. The attraction in these cases is the coaster track, with the theming a secondary element. Especially given that there would be so much duplication between the two articles, a merger is totally appropriate. Powers ^T 01:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• I support the move, but I'm still confused as to how you wanted to integrate the article in my sandbox into the article space. I believe that we have reached consensus here and the discussion should be closed. It has been two weeks without comment and no progress has been made on the move. —Jclavet (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Firstly as to why the move hasn't progressed. The requested moves page has a huge backlog of articles which seems to be slowly building because nobody is closing any of them. Once this discussion has been closed and the article moved, you or I can copy the contents of your sandbox over to destination article and attribute the other editor in our edit summary. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The name is "The Barnstormer featuring The Great Goofini"

Per a photograph from http://micechat.com/blogs/weekend-update/3330-mardi-gras-parade%3B-dumbo-flies%3B-west-coast-bash%3B-john-horny%3B-club-33.html, there is a sign that reads:

"Storybook Circus presents The Barnstormer featuring The Great Goofini"

Which seems to indicate the ride is still named "The Barnstormer". I recommend a rename to "The Barnstormer featuring The Great Goofini"

--98.112.156.6 (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source (such as a newspaper article) that says Disney is using this name then I'd support it. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what's important is what reliable sources use, not necessarily what Disney calls it. Powers ^T 19:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)