Talk:E.T. Adventure

Article start

Started article about the attraction at Universal Studios theme parks. Needs some more information and maybe a little cleanup. Phydend 03:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of a sentence

I removed this sentence from the article: The attraction is notable for being one of the only original Universal Studios Florida attractions still in operation, the other three being Jaws, Universal's Horror Make-Up Show and Lucy: A Tribute.

Other than the fact that I see this as trivia, I don't necessarily believe it is accurate. This is based on the fact that (aside from the fact that Jaws was nothing like how it is now when it opened), I don't see how the Horror Make Up Show has been there from the park opening. I agree that a similar attraction has been there in the same place with a different name and a few different details, but if that counts surely Disaster has also been there from when the park opened (as it really is no more different to Earthquake, than the Make-Up show is t its predecessor)--TimothyJacobson (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on E.T. Adventure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sallycorp.com/darkrides/et_adventure.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150225051916/http://www.dynamicattractions.com/portfolio/ to http://www.dynamicattractions.com/portfolio/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usj.co.jp/studioguide/attraction/e_et_adventure.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on E.T. Adventure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150225043736/http://www.orlandorocks.com/info.aspx?location=usf&attraction=et&type=overview to http://www.orlandorocks.com/info.aspx?location=usf&attraction=et&type=overview

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• E.T. Adventure.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Before the ride there was a small show.

There was a stage and audience before the ride around 1996 or 87. I was called up onto the stage to ride E.T.'s bike in front of a screen that later showed me flying with E.T. in front of a moon. There was no ride back then. 97.103.205.161 (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Italicize title

InfiniteNexus, we've had other rides in the past based on films and film franchises, such as Tomb Raider: The Ride (links to disambig) or Top Gun. For the latter, you can read this newspaper clipping that clearly shows in running text that the ride name was not italicized, but when referring to the film (i.e. "Top Gun theme"), the title was italicized. So there's support right there in a source where the ride name based on a film was not italicized, and historically we have followed suit on Wikipedia. Is there anything in our MoS that suggests we should do otherwise that perhaps I'm not aware of? --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

If the ride includes the title of a film, that portion should be italicized; if it includes a character name, it should not. Embedded titles are briefly discussed at MOS:CONFORMTITLE (point 4) and MOS:THETITLE (third paragraph), but I'm not sure if it's elaborated upon elsewhere. We do have many theme park attraction articles that italicize the film title portion of the name, and to me, it doesn't make sense not to do so. The newspaper clipping is interesting, but they're following a different style guide than us, so ...

In any case, the issue at hand seems to be whether "E.T." in "E.T. Adventure" refers to the film or the character. I don't know the answer to that (it just seemed to me yesterday that it was the former), but I'm not going to push it. I'm willing to just leave it at that if you think it's referring to the character. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that when a title of a work appears within another title (i.e. it is embedded), then it should be italicized. The italicized examples given appear in longer titles of other works, like newspaper headlines, book and chapter titles. That is all true and good, but the problem here is that E.T. Adventure is a proper name of a thing or object, not a title of a work. It should be handled differently and not treated as a title within a title.

At MOS:NOITALIC (2nd paragraph), we even get a glimpse of proper names being exempt, although admittedly this guideline doesn't address a film title appearing inside a proper name. However, proper names are generally off-limits unless they are specifically mentioned at MOS:NAMESANDTITLES. Consensus in past discussion has determined that amusement rides, even roller coasters, do not qualify.

If you want to phone a friend by bringing in any MoS experts, feel free. Might be a good idea. We can shelve this in the meantime. Whether or not E.T. gets italicized honestly isn't a huge issue for me, but it would impact quite a few articles if we start changing it now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't going to come back to this, but now you've caught my attention. While the names of theme park attractions aren't technically titles of "works", I would argue the logic is similar. I checked every MoS page I could find that pertains to italics and titles but couldn't find anything specific, nor could I find guidance in external style guides, so it would seem there is no definitive consensus. However, one would assume that a title of a work that is normally italicized stays in italics (except in special circumstances when the surrounding text is italicized, as in the case of WP:ITHAT); I'm not convinced proper names have the effect of "canceling out" italics, and MOS:NOITALIC doesn't support that.

In any case, I found many articles about theme park attractions that italicize the portion of their name that is a title of a work, so there is at least some WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS: Avatar Flight of Passage, The Simpsons Ride, Star Wars: Rise of the Resistance, The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror, Fast & Furious: Supercharged, Guardians of the Galaxy: Cosmic Rewind, World of Frozen, etc. Of course, there are outliers, but mainly shorter articles with low views (theme park attraction articles in general tend to be infrequently viewed and edited). But this extends beyond attractions; see Star Wars Celebration, Matrix defense, Doctor Who Appreciation Society, and The International Wizard of Oz Club, for example. The New York Times Company is an interesting case, but that just opens another can of worms. @SMcCandlish: Perhaps you have some thoughts? InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Always appreciate a good discussion, and that's exactly who I was thinking about pinging! Also as another newer example, there's Tron Lightcycle Power Run. You'll notice that Tron is italicized in the title as well, but that seems to be a pattern with those that watch/edit Disney and Universal theme parks (I'm not one that spends much time in that realm).

But let's look at a few sources for the Tron ride (or is it Tron ride?): there's this, this, and this. Along with that newspaper clipping I posted initially, these clearly show each source swapping between italics and non-italics when going back and forth between the ride and film title. Clearly some external style guide is warranting that behavior. Does it have to be the same action we follow on Wikipedia? No, but it would be nice to know why we wouldn't. I'm pretty much seeing this behavior in every decent source I come across, and if we rely on a different style for a good reason, that would be nice to know.

I don't really have much to say about the examples you've listed, other than I can list quite a few that show the oppposite; clearly we're being inconsistent. It must boil down to the editor(s) who are participating at each article, a lack of guidance in the MoS, low traffic, etc. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

No italics. This is not encompassed as a thing to italicize at MOS:TITLES or MOS:ITALICS, so just don't do it. If you insist that we should have a new rule to do that, then go start an RfC proposing a rule change at WT:MOSITALICS. Be aware that many times in the past people have tried "While the names of X aren't technically titles of "works", I would argue the logic is similar" poor analogies (with regard to all sorts of things, from band tours to lines of toys to trails and climbing routes, and these arguments have failed every single time. PS: The "E.T." in the name of this is reference to the character. The title of the film is E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, not E.T.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

We're not italicizing the name of the attraction, only the name of the work. Titles of works are, obviously, discussed at MOS:TITLES and MOS:ITALICS. It is a guideline that states an exemption to this rule "when it is embedded in proper names" that we should be looking for. A similar guideline that emphasizes there is no exemption when embedded in other titles is already present, which is the closest thing we have to a specific guideline addressing this. Until then, there is no guideline stipulating that we should un-italicize italicized titles anywhere on the encyclopedia except WP:ITHAT. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

To recap, InfiniteNexus, you believe that E.T. Adventure should be E.T. Adventure, citing two guidelines:

1. MOS:CONFORMTITLE – "Generally, the guidelines on typographic conformity in quoted material also apply to titles of works"
   (bullet #4) – "Titles of works that should be italicized receive this treatment inside another title ... This includes in a citation template as well as in running text"
2. MOS:THETITLE doesn't discuss embedded titles but gives an example: a book chapter titled "An Examination of The Americans: The Anachronisms in FX's Period Spy Drama"

• Note: Let's set the E.T. film vs. character debate to the side for now. My fault for starting it! Let's just assume the worst case scenario that E.T. refers to the film, which is certainly possible.

There are several counterpoints:

1. The MoS guidance you've cited specifically states "titles of works" more than once, and "inside another title" should be read as "inside another title of a work". While you can argue that E.T. is a title of work, E.T. Adventure is a proper name. Therefore, you're dealing with "inside a proper name", so the guidance for embedded titles doesn't apply.
2. MOS:NAT is the first brief coverage on proper names and italics, which simply lists a few exceptions that are italicized. MOS:NOITAL is the main guidance, which states:

   Italics are generally used only for titles of longer works ... Italics should not be used for ... proper names, to which the convention of italicizing non-English words and phrases does not apply

3. When we look at the style used by various sources (noted above), they too are not applying italics to the title of works that appear within the name of the ride or attraction.
   (Disclaimer: Some online web sources use quotes instead of italics. I was careful to find high-quality examples that either appear in print or use italics online)

When combined, I think it forms a pretty valid argument against E.T. Adventure. Again, there is an external style guide (APA?) being followed by these sources that clearly agrees with this interpretation. Though we are allowed to deviate, why should we?

Regardless, the MoS could probably use more clarification on how to handle embedded titles within proper names. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

This seems to me like a questionable "SYNTH" of guidelines. We certainly should not italicize proper names per se (i.e. E.T. Adventure), and certainly, if a proper name includes a foreign-language term we shouldn't italicize it either, per MOS:NOITAL. Our MoS does state, however, that we should italicize titles of major works. E.T. is the title of a major work (for the sake of argument, let's pretend "E.T" is referring to the film and not the character, even though I'm no longer insisting that is the case). No MoS guideline states that "when embedded in proper names, titles of major works should be given an exemption and be un-italicized" (again, NOITAL says we shouldn't italicize proper names as a whole or foreign-language terms, not a blanket ban on italics appearing anywhere in proper names — of which titles of works are a subset!), so by default, we would continue to italicize them everywhere until/unless this exception is codified in the MoS. In fact, the MoS says that in a similar case, (to the effect of) "when embedded in titles of minor works, titles of major works should remain italicized", and in general, (to the effect of) "even if sources do not italicize titles of major works in accordance with their style guide, we should still italicize them per our style guide". Wikipedia generally does not care about other style guides unless amending our own (FWIW, the APA website, presumably an excerpt of the full text, does not address this extremely specific case — but in any case, it also says we should not italicize "the Harry Potter series", which we most certainly do per MOS:SERIESTITLE, so it's largely irrelevant to us). InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, okay, now let's not let this argument venture into a direction it doesn't need to go. Let me be crystal clear up front that I'm not arguing for APA style to rule our MoS, alright? LOL. I am fully aware that we have a MoS style that deviates from various style guide books out there, so there's no need to demonstrate through example. The point of using "the sources" in this discussion was to show how others outside of Wikipedia are handling this situation to provide some perspective. If you have other examples you'd like to show, feel free to share, but let's not extend that to mean that I am somehow trying to champion or drive the point home that our MoS needs to be exactly like external style guides (in fact, I have said multiple times in multiple ways that our MoS has its own style and that we are "allowed to deviate", was that missed?).

Now back to "titles of works" and how you believe the MoS is giving us a blank check to italicize them "everywhere"...

I disagree with this logic. If that was the case, why waste the real estate explaining the guidance, "Titles of works that should be italicized receive this treatment inside another title"? If we've already been given that blank check, doesn't this strike you as redundant? Why define or explain another specific situation where a title of a work should be italicized? If both SMcC's and my interpretations are correct, then it most certainly makes sense to define another area where you should be italicizing a major work, because no blank check has been given. However, if your interpretation is correct (i.e. "blank check" already granted), then it doesn't make sense. Now the MoS is being unnecessarily redundant. Curious to hear your thoughts. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Titles of works do get italicized everywhere.^[*] If Marvel creates a ride/attraction named Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness: The Adventure, then write it that way, because Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is a film title and the attraction is named after it. If they instead made one called Doctor Strange: The Adventure, write it that way, because Doctor Strange is just the character name. Same with E.T. Adventure.
[^* Titles of works get italicized everywhere when actually serving as titles of works. Lots of work titles are everyday words or phrases, or personal or place names, and would not receive italic stylization unless specifically in reference to a work by that title. E.g. "Erin Brokovich" is a real person, a fictionalized character, and a film title. This sentence properly does not use italics: "Her lone-wolf activism reminds me of that of the early Erin Brokovich"; this one also properly avoids italics: "Her performance reminds me of Julia Roberts as Erin Brokovich"; this one properly uses italics: "The pacing of this film reminds me strongly of that of Erin Brokovich." Another example would be a Marvel attraction named Captain Marvel – The Ride. This would not receive any italics, despite an MCU film by the same title, unless the attraction were provably named after the film, not after the MCU character more generally.]

It's important to understand that WP's default with regard to every form of stylization of text is do not do it; this theme runs through every MoS guideline consistently. We only apply a style when a specific (already-enumerated) exception unmistakably applies. If there's any doubt at all, don't stylize (italics, capitals, unusual punctuation, symbol substitutions, etc.)

Here, there is obviously strong doubt, because the film is named E.T., the Extra-Terrestrial, not E.T.; "E.T." is the main character's name. A partial title match that coincides with a character name is not a title. Close analogy: Indiana Jones Adventure is a real ride at Disneyland. It is not given as Indiana Jones Adventure, despite the string "Indiana Jones" being a partial title match for four films (and a TV series, comics, and games).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

SMcC, thanks for the clarification and I stand corrected then! One thing worth mentioning is that E.T. is a common shorthand title for the film E.T., the Extra-Terrestrial, so if can be shown that the ride name is using (or was meant to use) the shorthand title of the film, then you are saying we should be italicizing it in our article title as well, regardless of how external sources are stylizing it in print form, correct? GoneIn60 (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Responding to GoneIn60's comment above, I was not insinuating that you were trying to have APA dictate/override our MoS; I hope you did not interpret it that way and find my comment offensive. Anyway, CONFORMTITLE isn't entirely redundant because it discusses when to alter quoted material, which is something editors may be wary of and guidance that is found in most style guides. I would be open to further discussion on a project talk page if you still feel proper names should be given an exemption for italicizing titles of major works, but I think SMcC here has offered a concise summary of my main arguments.

Regarding E.T., I don't think it's immediately clear whether it's referring to the film or the character, and I think arguments can be made for both interpretations, so I don't have strong feelings for whether to italicize this article in particular. If we err on the safe side, we can leave it unitalicized. But, as SMcC noted, if it were something like World of Frozen or Fast & Furious: Supercharged, those are clearly referring to the film series and should undisputedly be italicized. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)