Thread:Hey1234/@comment-5111231-20181028165946/@comment-1635429-20181102230756

SilverFlight wrote: No, I'm not saying The Haunted Mansion movie is separate, I'm saying the Haunted Mansion setting in the movie isn't separate: the one that appears in that movie doesn't have its own page. We treat the Haunted Mansion "attraction" as a single real-life article, but none of the alternate versions of the mansion seen in other media, such as the movie, shows, and/or comics, don't have one - we basically consolidate it and all that information into one article. As with the others I mentioned, user neglect is not the primary reason for them being like that. It's not a matter of editors caring and that's not the point (also, I worked on that sea-salt ice cream article to avoid plagiarism and include the Disney stuff, no one argued about the mashup); it's a matter of consistency.

There are probably a ton of fictionalized Disneylands created in media, but do you see a page for one of those? If you're trying to argue we have a responsibility of keeping the fact from fiction, that argument is broken when we don't even use that. There is nothing wrong with combining the articles to mention both the fictional and factual depictions. Editors are completely free to make those articles if they so choose. Disneyland's HM does not have an infobox that lists characters and information from the film or other media. OMD does. You're making comparisons that don't add up whatsoever. They don't exist because no one created them. Do you expect me to create an article about the movie version of the HM because I made one for OMD in RBTI? It is user neglect. We have no rules or regulations that these hypothetical articles can't exist. They don't exist because no one bothered to create them. It's not a good argument whatsoever.

I seriously don't understand why this is bothering you so much. All the reasons you've given are personal issues and not something that's actually disruptive to the wiki itself. Not only that, since you've started this, the OMD article has expanded with info from the art book (info that has no relation to the actual website) and it's only going to expand from here, further settling one of your complaints that it's barren.