Talk:Disneyland/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Disneyland. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The Article Name is Ridiculous
Seriously. Why did it get changed back again? Why is Disneyland wrong? I'm serious. Nobody looking for the article is going to type "Disneyland Park (Anaheim)" in the search box. Just leave it Disneyland. Geez. EDIT: Oh, and by the way, have fun fixing all the articles that link to "Disneyland", since now it goes to a long disambiguation page. That is, if this article doesn't get fixed by then. --Lyght (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe at least change it to "Disneyland Park" since someone made another un-discussed move "Disneyland Park (Paris)" to "Parc Disneyland." --blm07 10:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- I changed the Paris page back to the English title. "Disneyland" should redirect here. but there probably should be a disambiguous page called Disneyland (disambiguous) Bytebear (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Agree. Move the disambiguation to Disneyland (disambiguation). Redirect Disneyland to this page, and add a disambig link to the dab page at the top of this article. Or simply move "Disneyland Park (Anaheim)" back to Disneyland and then do the rest of the above. Wikipedia articles should, by policy, be named after the most commonly used reference. And 99% of the time, when people say "Disneyland" they sure aren't thinking about Paris (particularly in the English-speaking world). --Rehcsif (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Done. I do think this article should stay the same. It is more accurate, and people looking for Disneyland should be ok redirecting here. I do think that the other ambiguous pages should have a header to direct them to the disambiguation page.Bytebear (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- "when people say "Disneyland" they sure aren't thinking about Paris (particularly in the English-speaking world)." - In North America you mean.. In Europe and UK, Disneyland Paris is thought as of Disneyland. Although I do agree that Disneyland Anaheim should be Disneyland simply because it was the original park and destination, and the first to use that name. SWatsi (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Done. I do think this article should stay the same. It is more accurate, and people looking for Disneyland should be ok redirecting here. I do think that the other ambiguous pages should have a header to direct them to the disambiguation page.Bytebear (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Agree. Move the disambiguation to Disneyland (disambiguation). Redirect Disneyland to this page, and add a disambig link to the dab page at the top of this article. Or simply move "Disneyland Park (Anaheim)" back to Disneyland and then do the rest of the above. Wikipedia articles should, by policy, be named after the most commonly used reference. And 99% of the time, when people say "Disneyland" they sure aren't thinking about Paris (particularly in the English-speaking world). --Rehcsif (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I changed the Paris page back to the English title. "Disneyland" should redirect here. but there probably should be a disambiguous page called Disneyland (disambiguous) Bytebear (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Change it to Disneyland (Anaheim) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.48.167 (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
toontown
this edit says toontown is a fictional SF suburb, the prev states it is a LA suburb. Which? reference? 67.49.8.228 (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- The movie was set in Los Angeles. Bytebear (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Proposal to add external link
I'd like to propose adding this link to the "External Links" section: Disneyland Vacation Tips: http://www.DisneylandVacationTips.com
It's a collection of tips for Disneyland visitors of all ages, organized by topic (i.e. FastPass Tips, Toddler Tips, Weather Tips).
Yes, it's my site. But I hope that doesn't work against me. I created the site because most of the Disneyland sites I see are bulletin-board style and/or tough to navigate for the first-time Disneyland visitor. I spent tons of time researching, writing, and organizing what I consider to be the best of the best Disneyland visitor info. We all know Disneyland is a fantastic place and I want people to have as excellent a time as I always do!
Thanks,
Kmilano (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I would say no. It is a conflict of interest and can be seen as spam and it violates policies of external links. Please review these issues. Bytebear (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- The site does seem a little heavy on the adsense, but other than that it seems to be a source of good information. However, the EL list in the article is already too long in my opinion... I'd be ok with adding this site, but only if one or more of the other sites were removed (e.g. we felt this site was more valuable in the article than one of the others. The fact that the owner brought up the site on a talk page doesn't bother me at all (in fact I suggested it to him) and shouldn't be used against him if the site would otherwise be considered valuable info for the article... --Rehcsif (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Any thoughts on which external site the new one could replace? Kmilano (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would say "none". The EL sites that are currently listed are (a) the official Disney page; (b, c, d) respected sites covering various aspects of Disney park management and history that supports and/or goes into great detail about the hows & whys of what the parks are about; (e) a site about the park's coasters /my opinion shouldn't be here but whatever/; (f) travel wiki; (g,h) two sites that also don't seem to provide any supporting information to this article and should probably be removed as well. Adding a "travel tips" EL site here is not appropriate and does not match the WP:EL policy. We appreciate that you've brought it up for discussion before attempting to add it, but I can't see any scenario where it would successfully stay as an EL. You will be better served seeing if it could be added to the travel wiki or to DMOZ. SpikeJones (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Any thoughts on which external site the new one could replace? Kmilano (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Original D
I see what you're saying and was ok with it but upon seeing another external site posted (originald.com) I'm reopening the discussion. Why is that website not asked to appeal to this page for a vote? Kmilano (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing that link to our attention. It was supposed to have been removed with all the other entries that editor had inserted onto WP elsewhere last week. As another editor was cleaning up after that poster, I thought they had gotten all of them and hadn't bothered to followup. SpikeJones (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Original D site added nothing new to the articles. A couple of storylines (already covered in the article), hidden mickeys (usually removed from the article), and a video from YouTube (that was encoded by someone else) could be added directly to the article if they are important enough. Besides, if Wikipedia allows one fan site on each article, then what about the rest of the multitudes of sites out there? --blm07 18:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you find other questionable external links from Original D or someone else, please feel free to let me know and they will be addressed promptly. We try our best to keep things clean, but some get past us... :) Just because someone else violates policy doesn't open the door for others to do likewise, all that really ends up happening is they get into trouble. heh... Tiggerjay (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
For the record, here are a few highly notable sites that have used Original D as a source for their own site.
71.116.179.175 (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- However the titles you use are abit mis-leading as they are really BLOGS which are sponsored by the newspapers. Blogs are not considered reliable sources.Tiggerjay (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Screamscape is a great site (I've reported news there of things that I knew couldn't be posted here myself), but it can't be used in WP directly as it is not just a blog but that it also fails WP:EL due to the fact that it doesn't cite its sources for rumor news that is reported there. I'll reiterate what was said before -- post your site at DMOZ or one of the other site aggregators; honestly, it will get much, much more exposure than it will get here. Remember, WP:NOT a link exchange. SpikeJones (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is really grasping at straws. The references to Original D at the pages linked above are trivial and non-notable; blog hyperlinks aren't an instant stamp of approval. Fundamentally, links to Original D add nothing of value to Wikipedia's articles. Furthermore, and this point bears emphasizing, the WHOIS record for originald.com says it first was registered on March 22, 2008—making the site less than two months old. It's absurd to suggest it's an invaluable resource with content unavailable anywhere else. It's an ordinary fan site with minimal, marginal content. Continuing to argue for its inclusion in Wikipedia articles is wasting people's time and it ignores previous advice that your views would be given more respect if you showed any interest in contributing to the encyclopedia. Instead, your only reason for editing Wikipedia appears to be promoting your website. —Whoville (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hey guys, my name is Ryan. I am the creator and owner of Original D. I just wanted it to be known that I have been a long time WP reader. I got a PM from a member today at my site saying that he is getting harassed here whenever he tries to add my site to the encyclopedia and gave me a link to this discussion page. I have filled him in that my goal is not to spam around on sites and the majority of what I have to offer can already be found on the WP articles. I believe things have been settled and you should not have any more issues regarding links to Original D. I decided to finally make an account on Wikipedia today because after building my site I think I have a lot to offer as far as the Disneyland related articles go. I'm actually rather excited to get invloved. On a side note, I also read around on all the different talk pages regarding this issue and somebody mention open directories. Thanks for that tip, I never thought of that before... :) -Dewdrinker19 (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just have an understanding of Wikipedia's policy on Conflicts of Interest when editing. Bytebear (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- No worries here. I understand how it works. The way I figure (and what I told the member of my site that kept posting the links) is that IF the site is ever important enough that it needs to be added here somebody will add it without us doing anything. haha. -Dewdrinker19 (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just have an understanding of Wikipedia's policy on Conflicts of Interest when editing. Bytebear (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hey guys, my name is Ryan. I am the creator and owner of Original D. I just wanted it to be known that I have been a long time WP reader. I got a PM from a member today at my site saying that he is getting harassed here whenever he tries to add my site to the encyclopedia and gave me a link to this discussion page. I have filled him in that my goal is not to spam around on sites and the majority of what I have to offer can already be found on the WP articles. I believe things have been settled and you should not have any more issues regarding links to Original D. I decided to finally make an account on Wikipedia today because after building my site I think I have a lot to offer as far as the Disneyland related articles go. I'm actually rather excited to get invloved. On a side note, I also read around on all the different talk pages regarding this issue and somebody mention open directories. Thanks for that tip, I never thought of that before... :) -Dewdrinker19 (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- This is really grasping at straws. The references to Original D at the pages linked above are trivial and non-notable; blog hyperlinks aren't an instant stamp of approval. Fundamentally, links to Original D add nothing of value to Wikipedia's articles. Furthermore, and this point bears emphasizing, the WHOIS record for originald.com says it first was registered on March 22, 2008—making the site less than two months old. It's absurd to suggest it's an invaluable resource with content unavailable anywhere else. It's an ordinary fan site with minimal, marginal content. Continuing to argue for its inclusion in Wikipedia articles is wasting people's time and it ignores previous advice that your views would be given more respect if you showed any interest in contributing to the encyclopedia. Instead, your only reason for editing Wikipedia appears to be promoting your website. —Whoville (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Screamscape is a great site (I've reported news there of things that I knew couldn't be posted here myself), but it can't be used in WP directly as it is not just a blog but that it also fails WP:EL due to the fact that it doesn't cite its sources for rumor news that is reported there. I'll reiterate what was said before -- post your site at DMOZ or one of the other site aggregators; honestly, it will get much, much more exposure than it will get here. Remember, WP:NOT a link exchange. SpikeJones (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- However the titles you use are abit mis-leading as they are really BLOGS which are sponsored by the newspapers. Blogs are not considered reliable sources.Tiggerjay (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Management section needs citiations
Management section needs citiations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.223.94 (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Some people are so rude on here
Seriously, some of the people on this site think of themselves as the defined experts on everything, and have appointed themselves as the definitive editors of all things. The whole reason that Wikipedia exists at all is that it is open for contributions from everyone, and everyone can add their part. It is silly then how some have taken it upon themselves to define what can be a reasonable information on, especially on Disneyland. Sorry to the Dad of two kids who works at the garage or whatever it was, but unless you work for like Disney Archives you really don't have the right to define what Disney in a global encyclopedia site. Get a life people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdarryls1 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Jdarrls1, I'm not sure what edits you are referring to since I do not see any edits from your account to this article. However, many new editors confuse reverts as some sort of ownership but rather, we are making edits to ensure an article adhears to Wikipedia Policies. I hope that may explain some of what you may be seeing here. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Disneyland Helipad section
I see that it's already been the subject of some dispute so I'm not going to touch it but the Disneyland Helipad information feels irrelevant and out of place. Is it true? Apparently so. Is it backed up with citations? Yes. Is it relevant to an article about the theme park? I don't think so. Based on the separate article about one incident, Los Angeles Airways Flight 417, the crash didn't occur at Disneyland, Disney had no involvement and the crash had no meaningful impact on the theme park, the Disney company or its park guests. The only link appears to be that Disneyland was the helicopter's destination. The impact of both crashes presumably was limited to the company that operated the passenger service, the families of the people involved and the physical sites where the helicopters crashed. By that reasoning, information about virtually every air disaster in history could be added to the articles on the departure and arrival airports, which would be absurd. The two crashes are a minor footnote in relation to the theme park and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Including it in the article should add to a greater understanding about Disneyland, which it doesn't do. Plus, it's wedged into the article in a way that makes no logical sense—listed among descriptions of park attractions that happen to involve transportation. Also consider that the person arguing for its inclusion is an aviation buff, so that may not reflect the most objective judgment on this issue. Other thoughts? —Whoville (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have to agree, mostly. The fact that Disneyland once had scheduled passenger helicopter service is notable. That's something you just don't see very often. However, the crash details probably don't belong there. Since there is a separate article about one of the crashes, that includes information about the second, there is no need to have a synopsis in the Disneyland article. I will remove and link accordingly. Rsduhamel (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's notable enough that a brief mention is appropriate. I added some more information about the helipads (there were 2 locations) along with a reference which also contains some additional photos of the helicopters and of the helipads. The crashes aren't Disneyland specific but the fact that they are why the service was discontinued is relevant the Disneyland article.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I just performed some minor date fixes, however I'm not sure that there is a WP:RS citing the accidents as a cause for the discontinuance of service, it appears that it might have been a combination of factors including the lack of federal funding. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have just added a larger area photo of Disneyland, from May, 1965, which also shows the helipad and hotel. I think it helps to provide a greater perspective of where the Park, hotel and chopper pads were, in relation to each other. EditorASC (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Nikita Khrushchev
I'm floored that Nikita Khrushchev's Disneyland snubbing is nowhere in this article.
"Due to the Cold War tension and security concerns, he was famously denied an excursion to Disneyland." (This from the Khrushchev entry.)
Mfryc (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:50thDisney.png
The image File:50thDisney.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Requested move (March 2009)
- The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was do not move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I have listed this at Wikipedia:Requested moves to start a discussion to move this page back to Disneyland. About a year ago there was a convoluted series of moves/redirects that set up the current system of similarly-named articles, where:
- Disneyland is a redirect to Disneyland Park (Anaheim).
- Disneyland Park (Anaheim) has a {{redirect}} hatnote indicating that "Disneyland" redirects there, and points to Disneyland (disambiguation).
- Disneyland (disambiguation) points to all Disney properties called "Disneyland" along with other questionable references.
WP:NC states that an article should be titled by its "most easily recognized name" and by what "reliable sources in English" call the subject. AFAIK, most English reliable sources (at least in the USA) refer to Anaheim's Disneyland as "Disneyland" and Paris' Disneyland as "Disneyland Paris". Notwithstanding that Disney officially styles both as "Disneyland Park," I think that the majority of English speakers associate the name "Disneyland" with the Anaheim park, largely owing to the fact that it existed under the "Disneyland" moniker without any further qualification (e.g., "Park" or "Resort") for 40 years before the Paris park changed its name to "Disneyland Paris" in 1995. Given the significance the Anaheim park has attained over the years, I highly doubt that the Paris park or even Disneyland Resort will ever replace the Anaheim park as simply "Disneyland" without qualification. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Poll
- Support move of Disneyland Park (Anaheim) to Disneyland. The latter is the most common name use to refer to the topic of this article, and so should be the title. Since it already redirects here, there is no need to disambiguate per WP:PRECISION. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Disneyland already redirects here, and the current title is more accurate and more common, particularly with the corporation itself.. Bytebear (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- We're only supposed to add precision to the most common name in an article title when it is necessary. There is no necessity for addition precision here. Usage within the corporation does not establish common usage. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I need to do this as I am the original requestor: Support per my argument above. KuyaBriBriTalk 18:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support the move ... common usage appends the city name to the other three parks, not to Anaheim. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support per WP:COMMONNAME. There should really be a guideline about not renaming articles to match current corporate marketing, though commonname covers part of that. Put simply, names should always be used in their recognized context, not in the context of current advertising. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Only to offer the counter argument that in the UK 'Disneyland Paris' is most commonly referred to as just 'Disneyland'. Plus as noted is it really essential to move it when it's already redirecting here. SWatsi ([[User talk:SWatsi|talk]) 19:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - for the same reasons as SWasti above. You do realise that elsewhere on the planet people are likely to call their 'local' Disneyland by the name 'Disneyland'? Simply put, this is US-centroism in an international encyclopedia. The Yeti (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Who in the world would ever type Disneyland Park (Anaheim) into a search? I say make it a redirect to Disneyland and move the page, as requested. --JBC3 (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support: I think the park in Anaheim is clearly the primary topic, even after taking into account the fact that the word Disneyland is sometimes used to Disneyland Paris etc; therefore the article on the Anaheim park should be at Disneyland and other parks can have qualifiers as necessary. If there is no primary topic, then Disneyland should be a disambiguation page; even the oppose !voters don't seem to be going that far, which suggests to me the Anaheim park really is the primary topic. "Disneyland redirects here" is not an unreasonable position, but it doesn't meet naming conventions. Baileypalblue (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- No the arguement is that Disneyland is a catch-all term these days for not one but three parks. English speakers in the UK and Ireland (as well as elsewhere in Europe) refer to Disneyland Paris as Disneyland. I imagine the same for English speakers who visit Hong Kong. This should be thought about in general. SWatsi (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose: reasons as User:SWatsi, and let plain Disneyland be the disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
The link Disneyland does redirect to this page, which means we are already redirectiong using the most common name. It doesn't go to a disambiguous page, so this page is correctly named, and yet, the common name also redirects. In other words you get the best of both worlds. The header also clearly states this fact, saying "This page redirects from Disneyland, for other uses, see Disneyland (Disambiguous)". Bytebear (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Redirecting from the most common name is not using the most common name for the title. If A redirects to B, then B should be the most common name. In this case we have it backwards. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.
Comment left after close of move discussion
I have moved the comment below, which was improperly added to the move discussion several months after that discussion was closed. Propaniac (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose: There is more than 1 Disneyland Park in the world, and we need to clearly specify this one is the one in Anaheim, California. --pdgator29talk 19:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Move?
If the result of the recent discussion was not to move, why was Disneyland changed to a disambiguous page instead of redirecting here? Where is the discussion that resulted in that change? Bytebear (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Attendance Graphs
Is there any way to format the attendance graphs so they don't overlap? They're very difficult to read as they are now. 69.42.7.98 (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
copy-edit
There seems to be issues with the photos interfering with the text belonging to it. Would anyone know a way of correcting this? using "
"s to seperate the spacing between paragraphs would work; however, is sloppy editting technique. Maybe if one expands the paragraphs a little, such as new orleans square, this would help abit. Though I would bring this up. Thanks in advance♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N. 08:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
References in regards to Opening Day, July 18th, 1955
Somebody asked on April 21st, 2010 for references in regards to what Disneyland called Opening day when the parked opened in 1955.
There are many official Disneyland documents available on-line that show that Disney did call Opening Day Monday, July 18th, 1955.
The best one is an ad that ran in local Southern California Newspapers that stated that Disneyland was opening at 10 AM on Monday, July 18th.
http://matterhorn1959.blogspot.com/2009/09/souvenir-friday-disneyland-opening-day.html
Then there are multiple Press Releases and other Disney documents that refer to Opening Day as July 18th when Walt Disney was still alive. (Through 1967).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/miehana/2678889709/
http://www.yesterland.com/oneyear.html
http://darkbeer.smugmug.com/Theme-Parks/Disneyland-Historical/6484647_BQxJP
http://darkbeer.smugmug.com/Theme-Parks-2006-Photos/Disneyland-Opening-Day-July/1677032_r7DT8
Now, while the Disney Marketing Department likes to call opening day July 17th, 1955 currently. It is clear that July 17th was a "Press Preview", and was not considered Opening Day by the people who built the park. It also matches up with every other Disney built park, all of which had preview events, but has called the first day that tickets were sold to the general public and could enter the park that day as "Opening Day". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.65.194 (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, none of the citations given above are reliable sources. There have been enough books written about Disneyland that a reference from a book should be available. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, first off, there are many news articles from the Anaheim Bulletin, the newspaper of record for the area at the time (since has merged with the Orange County Register, the current main newspaper of the area). There are multiple links at the Smugmug links above showing the actual articles. Also, the Long Beach Press-Telegram, another Main Newspaper of the time has published articles with the July 18th, 1955 date, including a special 16 page section that was designed by Disney, but also featured many park sponsors. (Note, on page one, it claims "Copyright 1955, Walt Disney Productions"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21569119/1955-July-15-Independent-Press-Telegram-Disneyland-Paleo-Future
Page 16 of the link states "Disneyland, Walt Disney's Magic Kingdom, will officially open at 10 A.M. on Monday, July 18th..." Here is "Walt Disney Productions" calling July 18th opening day (multiple times), what more do you want?
Let me quote from the Wikipedia link mentioned above "Identifying reliable sources".
>>The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or on-line. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.<<
Also, there are many PRIMARY Sources, which are documents issued by Disneyland during the 1950's-1960's time frame that show that it clearly thought that Opening Day was July 18th, they are sourced to the Anaheim Library archives (mainly the Museo). Also, a book published by Disneyland that shows the date as July 18th, 1955. Let me quote another Wikipedia section, this time, " No original research".
>>Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper is a primary source about the experiments performed by the authors. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.[2] Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, as that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.<<
Between the Primary Sources, coming directly from Disneyland, plus the Major Newspaper articles, it is clear what the opening date was when the park opened. Alas, most current books are written with the permission of Disney, usually to allow access to some of their archives. One of their rules is to call July 17th as opening day,which is based on the decision to move the date from the 18th to the 17th. around 1970. But it is clear that when the park opened, the date was the 18th, especially when you can see ads that Disney bought in mid-July, 1955, plus all the other "primary sources" directly from Disney, and the Main News Media of the area at the time that confirm those dates.
Since there is no verifiable sources from the time period when Disneyland opened that claims that "Opening Day" was the 17th, it is clear that the Opening Day date is July 18th, 1955. And as mentioned earlier, the "Opening Date" of Disneyland matches up with every other Disney owned park, which is the first day that the general public could buy tickets, and not a "preview" date.
Also, I should note, Wikipedia is a historical site, and not a marketing site.76.90.65.213 (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is a book that can be viewed by the internet "Anaheim 1940-2007" that states that Opening Day was on July 18th, 1955 (page 26).
One more, another third-party site.
http://inangeling.net/knottsberryfarm/timeline.html
76.90.65.213 (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
And an offical Press Release from The Walt Disney Company dated April 19th, 2010 in regards to the Major League Baseball All-Star game being held in Anaheim, California in July of 2010.
http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/moreinfo/mickey_mlb_allstar_game.html
>>Mantle, naturally, was the greatest All-Star of all Mickeys. He was an All-Star in all but two of his 18 Major League seasons. Disneyland opened to the general public on July 18, 1955. That was six days after The Mick, batting cleanup for the AL in the All-Star Game, crushed a three-run homer in the first inning to deep center off Robin Roberts at County Stadium in Milwaukee.<<
Hopefully this will end the debate, as The Walt Disney Company is now using the original date stated back when the park opened in 1955. 76.90.65.213 (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Note, July 17th, 1955 is Preview Day or Dedication Day, not "Opening Day". The first link in this discussion section clearly shows that Disney called Sunday the 17th a "Live TV Preview". http://www.matterhorn1959.com/blog1/openingday1.jpg This matches with all the other documentation from 1955, including the special tickets to enter, labled "International Press Preview" of Disneyland on July 17th 76.90.65.213 (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hello, my edit was not in dispute of the names of those two days that weekend in 1955. Any Disneyland nut knows about the debate over what's the "correct" thing to call the 17th V the 18th. My point is that the section talks about BOTH the 17th (the press event) and the 18th (the public opening day), with a majority of the prose talking about the 17th. So the section's title should reflect that content, not just the 18th. The reason I renamed the section was because of a previous editor who blanked a lot of referenced prose. I also sub-headed that part to satisfy the reason why they blanked it. So in the interest of coming to a consensus: What would you consider a better heading for that section that best reflects the content of the section? --Monotonehell 10:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- How About "July, 1955: Dedication Day and Opening Day" It describes the 2 days talked about in the section? 76.90.65.213 (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds good - updated. --Monotonehell 19:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Billy Hill and the Hillbilles schedule
I just went to the Disneyland.com schedule, and confirmed that the show is dark on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. So the comment in the change on May 6th, 2010 is wrong. But I do like the new wording, as this is not a travel site. So I am posting this comment to correct the wrong information, but still prefer the new wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.65.213 (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Requested 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Disneyland Park (Anaheim) → Disneyland — Per our article naming policy, articles should be titled using "the most common English-language name" for the topic. From the discussion above and the article itself, there seems to be no disagreement that the most common name for this park is "Disneyland." There's a possible disagreement about whether "Disneyland" is more likely to refer to this specific park than to any other, but the fact that Disneyland redirects here, and has for quite awhile, indicates a consensus that this is the primary topic for the name. There's no reason to redirect from a primary topic title to a disambiguated one; if this is the primary topic for "Disneyland", it should be at that title. Propaniac (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with this proposal. Current situation is laughable. 98.82.3.114 (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Disneyland" refers to the original park in Anaheim. That's why there's EuroDisney and Disney World. The redirect is sort of proof that the article should just be Disneyland. Mythic Dawn Agent (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: 'Disneyland Park' is the official name for just the original park (now, management changed the name with the creation of the resort when DCA was added). 'Disneyland Resort' refers to the two parks, Downtown Disney and the associated hotels. If you look above there was a similar discussion back in 2008 that resulted in the page name now. I guess having the official name on the article is slightly more correct, and a redirect from the most common name is important for readers to find the article. But having said that I don't see any huge weight of argument for either case, and I think you'll get arguments either way so I'd like to see a very good consensus formed before any page moving occurs. --Monotonehell 09:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- (I assume you're referring to the 2009 discussion, as it appears to me that nobody liked the current name in the 2008 discussion.) In my move request nomination, I tried to address what I read as the only two arguments opposing a move in the 2009 discussion: 1. That it doesn't matter which title is used as long as one redirects to the other (which goes against our guidelines that advise using the best title for the topic, and not simply redirecting the best title to some other title), and 2. That "Disneyland" may not necessarily refer to the Anaheim park (which doesn't make a lot of sense as an argument, since Disneyland already redirects here). The third argument, that "Disneyland Park" is the official name (assuming that's true; I don't know myself), again seems to contradict our guideline which promotes using the most common name. Of course I presume the discussion will be left open for at least the minimum 7 days to allow time for any potential objection, but I have a hard time understanding how any of those 3 arguments could be particularly persuasive. Propaniac (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Potentially, one could argue that it's better for someone who types in "Disneyland" in a search to be redirect to Disneyland Park so that they can immediately see whether or not they're at the right article without having to read the hatnote. That advantage would be lost by using the ambiguous title. Powers T 20:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that argument also indicate that every term with more than one meaning should go to a disambiguation page, effectively getting rid of all primary topics? Wherever there is a primary topic, there is a hatnote. I don't see why this case would call for unusual treatment compared to every other primary topic/hatnote combination on the website. Propaniac (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. Perhaps, then, the point I should have made is that maybe "Disneyland Park (Anaheim)" is not so obviously the primary topic in this case. Powers T 12:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- The redirect has been in place for over a year with, as far as I can tell, no objection, which seems to me to reflect a current consensus that this is the primary topic. I didn't suggest this move because I wanted to declare this the primary topic; I just wanted to name the article properly in accordance with what already seemed to have been determined. But if a groundswell of opposition appeared here on the basis that this isn't the primary topic and the redirect shouldn't be in place at all, of course that would be an argument worth taking into account. (Although, if it were decided not to move this article to Disneyland, I would then argue for a move to Disneyland (Anaheim) because the "Park" bit still appears superfluous to me.) Propaniac (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Lack of objection isn't always positive evidence of widespread approval. I'm a bit ambivalent myself, as I can see merits to each of the available possibilities. Powers T 15:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree it's not evidence of approval (although it's not like there is or was evidence of disapproval), but since a decision had been made and it appeared to be stable, I proposed the move that is the proper response to that decision. If you think the original decision was wrong or that the move is wrong or both, you can !vote to oppose the move or take whatever other steps you want. To me it seems that starting a new discussion on the matter now, six days into this unopposed move request, would be stirring stuff up for no good reason, but you have the right to express whatever opinion or proposal you think is appropriate. Propaniac (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not committing to anything right now. I merely raised a possibility. It seems to me not unreasonable to think that, despite longstanding precedent regarding redirects and primary topics, that someone might feel that Disneyland is sufficiently primary to redirect here but not sufficiently primary to be the article title. Sounds contradictory, but since the two situations are only mostly equivalent, there is room in the gap for someone to find value in one over the other. Powers T 19:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- I just stumbled upon a couple of examples: Sheep redirects to Domestic sheep; Rose Bowl redirects to Rose Bowl Game. Powers T 19:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not committing to anything right now. I merely raised a possibility. It seems to me not unreasonable to think that, despite longstanding precedent regarding redirects and primary topics, that someone might feel that Disneyland is sufficiently primary to redirect here but not sufficiently primary to be the article title. Sounds contradictory, but since the two situations are only mostly equivalent, there is room in the gap for someone to find value in one over the other. Powers T 19:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree it's not evidence of approval (although it's not like there is or was evidence of disapproval), but since a decision had been made and it appeared to be stable, I proposed the move that is the proper response to that decision. If you think the original decision was wrong or that the move is wrong or both, you can !vote to oppose the move or take whatever other steps you want. To me it seems that starting a new discussion on the matter now, six days into this unopposed move request, would be stirring stuff up for no good reason, but you have the right to express whatever opinion or proposal you think is appropriate. Propaniac (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Lack of objection isn't always positive evidence of widespread approval. I'm a bit ambivalent myself, as I can see merits to each of the available possibilities. Powers T 15:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- The redirect has been in place for over a year with, as far as I can tell, no objection, which seems to me to reflect a current consensus that this is the primary topic. I didn't suggest this move because I wanted to declare this the primary topic; I just wanted to name the article properly in accordance with what already seemed to have been determined. But if a groundswell of opposition appeared here on the basis that this isn't the primary topic and the redirect shouldn't be in place at all, of course that would be an argument worth taking into account. (Although, if it were decided not to move this article to Disneyland, I would then argue for a move to Disneyland (Anaheim) because the "Park" bit still appears superfluous to me.) Propaniac (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. Perhaps, then, the point I should have made is that maybe "Disneyland Park (Anaheim)" is not so obviously the primary topic in this case. Powers T 12:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wouldn't that argument also indicate that every term with more than one meaning should go to a disambiguation page, effectively getting rid of all primary topics? Wherever there is a primary topic, there is a hatnote. I don't see why this case would call for unusual treatment compared to every other primary topic/hatnote combination on the website. Propaniac (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Potentially, one could argue that it's better for someone who types in "Disneyland" in a search to be redirect to Disneyland Park so that they can immediately see whether or not they're at the right article without having to read the hatnote. That advantage would be lost by using the ambiguous title. Powers T 20:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- (I assume you're referring to the 2009 discussion, as it appears to me that nobody liked the current name in the 2008 discussion.) In my move request nomination, I tried to address what I read as the only two arguments opposing a move in the 2009 discussion: 1. That it doesn't matter which title is used as long as one redirects to the other (which goes against our guidelines that advise using the best title for the topic, and not simply redirecting the best title to some other title), and 2. That "Disneyland" may not necessarily refer to the Anaheim park (which doesn't make a lot of sense as an argument, since Disneyland already redirects here). The third argument, that "Disneyland Park" is the official name (assuming that's true; I don't know myself), again seems to contradict our guideline which promotes using the most common name. Of course I presume the discussion will be left open for at least the minimum 7 days to allow time for any potential objection, but I have a hard time understanding how any of those 3 arguments could be particularly persuasive. Propaniac (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2010 (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.
Disneyland and the 1893 World's Fair
Hey folks, I made a change and hope it's okay. I noticed that the article said that Walt Disney may have been influenced by his memories of the 1893 World Fair. He wasn't born in 1893, so I added the word "father's" to the sentence. Hope that's okay, although that section doesn't have a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.18.105 (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about Disneyland. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
donald duck in red sailor suit
I have a rubber toy donald duck from disney mark on back of neck he is wearing a red sailor suit and has a long removable sqeaker in his foot! I know he is at least 50 years or older he has been in the family a long time! i can not locate another one anywhere on the internet! could you help me figure out when this donald duck was made and when did he stop wearing the red sailor suit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.86.170.74 (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Try searching on Google. StormContent (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Opening Day References in regard to the July 18th, 1955 date
From the Disneyland "Discussion" archives.....
References in regards to Opening Day, July 18th, 1955Somebody asked on April 21st, 2010 for references in regards to what Disneyland called Opening day when the parked opened in 1955.
There are many official Disneyland documents available on-line that show that Disney did call Opening Day Monday, July 18th, 1955.
The best one is an ad that ran in local Southern California Newspapers that stated that Disneyland was opening at 10 AM on Monday, July 18th.
http://matterhorn1959.blogspot.com/2009/09/souvenir-friday-disneyland-opening-day.html
Then there are multiple Press Releases and other Disney documents that refer to Opening Day as July 18th when Walt Disney was still alive. (Through 1967).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/miehana/2678889709/
http://www.yesterland.com/oneyear.html
http://darkbeer.smugmug.com/Theme-Parks/Disneyland-Historical/6484647_BQxJP
http://darkbeer.smugmug.com/Theme-Parks-2006-Photos/Disneyland-Opening-Day-July/1677032_r7DT8
Now, while the Disney Marketing Department likes to call opening day July 17th, 1955 currently. It is clear that July 17th was a "Press Preview", and was not considered Opening Day by the people who built the park. It also matches up with every other Disney built park, all of which had preview events, but has called the first day that tickets were sold to the general public and could enter the park that day as "Opening Day". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.65.194 (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, none of the citations given above are reliable sources. There have been enough books written about Disneyland that a reference from a book should be available. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, first off, there are many news articles from the Anaheim Bulletin, the newspaper of record for the area at the time (since has merged with the Orange County Register, the current main newspaper of the area). There are multiple links at the Smugmug links above showing the actual articles. Also, the Long Beach Press-Telegram, another Main Newspaper of the time has published articles with the July 18th, 1955 date, including a special 16 page section that was designed by Disney, but also featured many park sponsors. (Note, on page one, it claims "Copyright 1955, Walt Disney Productions"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21569119/1955-July-15-Independent-Press-Telegram-Disneyland-Paleo-Future
Page 16 of the link states "Disneyland, Walt Disney's Magic Kingdom, will officially open at 10 A.M. on Monday, July 18th..." Here is "Walt Disney Productions" calling July 18th opening day (multiple times), what more do you want?
Let me quote from the Wikipedia link mentioned above "Identifying reliable sources".
>>The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or on-line. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.<<
Also, there are many PRIMARY Sources, which are documents issued by Disneyland during the 1950's-1960's time frame that show that it clearly thought that Opening Day was July 18th, they are sourced to the Anaheim Library archives (mainly the Museo). Also, a book published by Disneyland that shows the date as July 18th, 1955. Let me quote another Wikipedia section, this time, " No original research".
>>Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper is a primary source about the experiments performed by the authors. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.[2] Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, as that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.<<
Between the Primary Sources, coming directly from Disneyland, plus the Major Newspaper articles, it is clear what the opening date was when the park opened. Alas, most current books are written with the permission of Disney, usually to allow access to some of their archives. One of their rules is to call July 17th as opening day,which is based on the decision to move the date from the 18th to the 17th. around 1970. But it is clear that when the park opened, the date was the 18th, especially when you can see ads that Disney bought in mid-July, 1955, plus all the other "primary sources" directly from Disney, and the Main News Media of the area at the time that confirm those dates.
Since there is no verifiable sources from the time period when Disneyland opened that claims that "Opening Day" was the 17th, it is clear that the Opening Day date is July 18th, 1955. And as mentioned earlier, the "Opening Date" of Disneyland matches up with every other Disney owned park, which is the first day that the general public could buy tickets, and not a "preview" date.
Also, I should note, Wikipedia is a historical site, and not a marketing site.76.90.65.213 (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is a book that can be viewed by the Internet "Anaheim 1940-2007" that states that Opening Day was on July 18th, 1955 (page 26).
One more, another third-party site.
http://inangeling.net/knottsberryfarm/timeline.html
76.90.65.213 (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
And an official Press Release from The Walt Disney Company dated April 19th, 2010 in regards to the Major League Baseball All-Star game being held in Anaheim, California in July of 2010.
http://corporate.disney.go.com/corporate/moreinfo/mickey_mlb_allstar_game.html
>>Mantle, naturally, was the greatest All-Star of all Mickeys. He was an All-Star in all but two of his 18 Major League seasons. Disneyland opened to the general public on July 18, 1955. That was six days after The Mick, batting cleanup for the AL in the All-Star Game, crushed a three-run homer in the first inning to deep center off Robin Roberts at County Stadium in Milwaukee.<<
Hopefully this will end the debate, as The Walt Disney Company is now using the original date stated back when the park opened in 1955. 76.90.65.213 (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Note, July 17th, 1955 is Preview Day or Dedication Day, not "Opening Day". The first link in this discussion section clearly shows that Disney called Sunday the 17th a "Live TV Preview". http://www.matterhorn1959.com/blog1/openingday1.jpg This matches with all the other documentation from 1955, including the special tickets to enter, labeled "International Press Preview" of Disneyland on July 17th 76.90.65.213 (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, my edit was not in dispute of the names of those two days that weekend in 1955. Any Disneyland nut knows about the debate over what's the "correct" thing to call the 17th V the 18th. My point is that the section talks about BOTH the 17th (the press event) and the 18th (the public opening day), with a majority of the prose talking about the 17th. So the section's title should reflect that content, not just the 18th. The reason I renamed the section was because of a previous editor who blanked a lot of referenced prose. I also sub-headed that part to satisfy the reason why they blanked it. So in the interest of coming to a consensus: What would you consider a better heading for that section that best reflects the content of the section? --Monotonehell 10:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC) How About "July, 1955: Dedication Day and Opening Day" It describes the 2 days talked about in the section? 76.90.65.213 (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Sounds good - updated. --Monotonehell 19:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.71.13 (talk)
The Walt Disney Company considers July 17, 1955 the day Disneyland opened. People trying to obfuscate the issue by claiming that only "the Disney Marketing Department" wants to promote July 17 as the opening date. That is not true and muddies the water. There is no entity called "the Disney Marketing Department", each division has its own marketing department and the overall head for communications is Corporate Communications. currently headed by Zenia Mucha.
Looking at what Disney called the days in 1955 is irrelevant. Looking at what newspapers called the days is irrelevant. What is relevant is what TWDC considers to have been the opening day and that day is July 17, 1955. All of the birthday celebrations for Disneyland have centered on that date. July 17, 1955. That is the day Disneyland opened.
The quote above from 2010 about the MLB All Star game does not say "Disneyland opened July 18, 1955", it says "Disneyland opened to the general public on July 18, 1955" and those are two very different statements.
Look at what date the 20th, 25th, 30th, 35th, 40th, 45th, 50th and 55th birthday celebration have been. They have all been July 17, not July 18. Look at the plaque placed in Main Street with Walt Disney's "To all who come to this happy place" speech, it is dated July 17, 1955.
Why there is this bizarre obsession to change the date that is clearly recognized by The Walt Disney Company is beyond me, but it only hurts Wikipedia's credibility as a source of accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottca075 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, just walk inside the Disneyland Opera House and look at the large blow up of "The Disneyland News", Volume 1, Number 1. It states "More than 50,000 visitors were attracted to Disneyland on Monday, July 18th, when the Park officially opened its gates".. And within the same paragraph (and the first part of the second)... "official dedication ceremonies of Disneyland on the preceding day, Sunday, July 17. The Preview of Disneyland"...
And of course, the 1st, 5th and 10th Anniversaries were celebrated on July 18th of the appropriate year.
Why is the date that was "originally" used irrelevant? That is the date that was used when the park opened, and remained the date until sometime around the year 1970, when it somehow it got changed... As mentioned on the main page, there is a large amount of significance about Dedication Day on the 17th, but it is NOT opening day.
It is very clear from all the information above that "Opening Day" was July 18th to Walt Disney and the company at the time "Walt Disney Productions", which did become "The Walt Disney Company (TWDC) in the future.
And the secondary issue that helps make July 18th the opening day is the fact that every other Disney owned park calls "Opening Day" the day that tickets were available for purchase to enter the park, and not any "preview" date. (Also the standard that non-Disney Theme/Amusement parks use as the official date of opening).
To me, if Wikipedia did NOT recognize July 18th as the official opening date would hurt its creditability!
76.166.134.154 (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure why this is an issue now ... the current revision of the article (as of the time of this posting) indicates that the park opened to the public on July 18, after a media preview event on July 17, and says so rather clearly. --McDoobAU93 01:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, came across this today, which is a clear reason why Wikipedia should reconginize July 18th, 1955 as opening day. Charlie Ridgway, which worked for Disneyland from 1963 to the mid-1990's, and retired as "Director of Press and Publicity" stated this earlier this year. (FYI, Charlie Ridgway has been honored with a Window on Main Street, which is one of the highest honors for a Disneyland Cast Member).
>>For months leading up to the grand opening of Disneyland on July 18, 1955, people were talking about it. Everyone wanted to be the first ones inside.
Disney scheduled a Press Preview on July 17, with the park open by invitation to journalists, celebrities, and many, many other people who were asked to come for one reason or another.<<
It also addresses the issue of "extra" tickets on Dedication day (July 17th, 1955) whcih might require some editing of the main page, as the issue of "counterfeit tickets" might be wrong, and should be changed. 76.166.134.154 (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'll ask again ... why are you suggesting that Wikipedia "should" note July 18 when Wikipedia already does note July 18? If there was a revert war in progress over this right now (and there has been in the past), I could understand it, but this appears to have been settled to at least a point of consensus. As to the ticket issue, I read the source you provided, and Mr. Ridgway himself states that it's his belief, not a proven fact, and that's not enough for inclusion necessarily. --McDoobAU93 14:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
What the heck? Walt Disney only allowed guests he invited to Disneyland on July 17. Please do not add. Disneyland opened to the public on July 18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New York4152 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Are we seriously edit warring about this? I think Disney is entitled to decide which day qualifies as their anniversary date. Saying it was "really" the 18th strikes me as original research. Powers T 21:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree, The current "Walt Disney Company" can call their Anniversary date whatever they want... But Opening Day is July 18th, 1955. The issue of "No Original research" was addressed earlier in this "thread". You can't change History, and everything from the 1950's and 1960's says the date is the 18th, and nothing says the 17th in that time period. I think the main page addresses the difference between the "International Press Preview" (aka Dedication Day), and Opening day very well. This is not a advertisement website, but a historical one, and History clearly shows the 18th as being the correct "Opening Day" in 1955.GeorgeKelsey (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- The wall of text at the start of this section is pretty impenetrable. The question is, why favor 50s and 60s sources over modern ones, which generally refer to Disneyland opening on July 17? And who defines "opening day"? Powers T 14:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- There shouldn't be any problem explaining the difference between the day the park was dedicated (July 17) and the first official operating day (July 18), as George has suggested. Magic Kingdom's anniversary is October 1, 1971, but the official dedication took place later that month, I believe. If we have sources indicating the change in attitude at Corporate about what date was the anniversary, that would help even more explain why there is a difference (and be more informative, of course). --McDoobAU93 16:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Who defines "Opening Day", IMHO, the folks that opened the park... Aka Walt Disney (and others), who always stated that July 18th was opening day. I could make some joke about Joan Rivers and what year she was born. But the main page talks about the "Anniversary", and how it was celebrated in the 50's and 60's, and currently. In the issue of things, I think it is enough detail for the main page, but if others think it needs more detail, please explain, and maybe post some suggested wording here.GeorgeKelsey (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think the distinction is covered in sufficient detail; my concern is that the infobox and the lead seem misleading, or at least inaccurate to those familiar with the Company's history, because they treat the 18th as the definitive date without mention of the more widely known 17th. Powers T 13:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
The 17th is clearly mentioned in the second paragraph of the article, and nothing in the article is inaccurate.GeorgeKelsey (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Let me add a comment about the "Company" History, OK, in this "thread", a recent Press Release from The Walt Disney Company mentions the 18th, and one of the best known Cast Members (Employees), the person that was in charge of Press and Publicity, Charles Ridgway, who worked for the company for over 30 years, states Opening Day is July 18th. Just because someone back in 1970 preferred to have the "official" celebration and publicity on a Friday, instead of a Saturday, where it would not have as much coverage, does not make it "real" or correct. July 17th is a significant day and should be noted, but to try and claim it is opening day is just wrong, and as stated, even the current management is backing away from the date, and is noting that opening day is the 18th, but still opts to celebrate the Anniversary on the 17th.GeorgeKelsey (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- None of which you provided any proof of. Just saying that Disney mentions the 18th, or quoting from a recent press release isn'y good enough. Where is the source? Otherwise its original research.--JOJ Hutton 19:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
There are PLENTY of "Published" sources, plus plenty of Primary sources, which talk about historic docments that are from the people who wrote about the event when it happened, citing those documents, newspapers and books is NOT Original Research, per Wikipedia policy. (See above for the quotes about Wiki policy.) Many of these documents are cited above, and are still available currently to verify on the internet using the links provided.GeorgeKelsey (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- There is no consensus to have the date of the 18th. Synthesis of primary sources does not and should not override reliable secondary sources. On top of that, you continue to remove "citation needed" tags, which is against guidelines, as well as incorrectly changing spelling of words to incorrect spellings. Continuing to do so should be treated as vandalism. There were 5 reliable secondary sources. You provided none whatsoever. You need to stop this tendentious attitude and stop adding your original research and synthesis. In addition to WP:OR, another of Wikipedias core content policies is WP:V, which says that Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. The sources say that the opening date is the 17th, not the 18th. Whatever the actual truth is, may never be found, but Wikipedia only publishes what is in reliable sources, and photo copies of handbills from the 1950's and 1960's are not reliable sources. Per Policy.--JOJ Hutton 19:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
In regards to the September 2012 remoival and return. The Press Release in question is on file at the Anaheim Museo Historical Reference Center (Part of the Anaheim Public Library system). Yes, there is a photo available online, but that is just for reference. As mentioned earlier in this discussion, the document is a primary source, and no "interpretation" is needed, it is a clear fact that the document states that Opening Day was on July 18th, 1955. It is clearly allowed to be used hgere. Also, in this discussion are secondary sources, such as Newspaper article from 1967 and earlier that state that Disneyland used July 18th, 1955 as Opening Day.GeorgeKelsey (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, is this the Muzeo being referred to in Anaheim? 72Dino (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the location, The Historical Library is one the first floor.GeorgeKelsey (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- @Georgekelsey. You are making a claim that is not supported by any of the sources. You claim that Disney considered the 18th as opening day? But in a Disney documentary filmed in the mid 60s, Walt Disney says, in his own words and in his own voice, that the 17th was opening day. So not only do your sources not support the claim you are making, but it is contradicted by Walt Disney himself.JOJ Hutton 13:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, let's look at ALL the references made here in this thread...
First, an Advertising Supplement created by Disneyland and was found in the local newspapers the weekend before opening, it clearly states "Opening July 18th, 1955 at 10 AM".
Then the flickr photo has a handout from Disneyland that states "will officially open on Monday, July 18th".
Then we have the Museo stuff, a newpaper photo with "Official Opening July 18th, 1955"
A Disneyland Press Release from Opening week, "With this July 18 ingaugural in 1955"
Then we have a small book that was published by Disneyland, Incorporated in 1956 "Disneyland, A Complete Guide" on the back page, it has a list of facts, including "A 63-year old lady from Redlands, California, has visited Disneyland once a week every week since opening date, July 18, 1955."
A press release from Disneyland dated July 11, 1967 it starts with "DISNEYLAND '55 - On Opening Day (July 18)...", also the same press release calls July 17th "Disneyland Dedication Day"
An Anaheim Bulletin news article from September 1955 states "52 days after the July 18 opening".
An Anaheim Bulletin Photo Caption from July 19th, 1960 where it states "Disneyland opened to the public July 18, 1955". The photo is Walt Disney with some kids cutting a cake in front of the Main Street Train Station on July 18, 1960.
Another Anaheim Bulletin Photo and article, this time from July 19th, 1965, In which there is a photo of Walt Disney with a Disneyland Ammbassador and Mickey cutting the Birthday cake . Caption states "The ceremony was held Sunday morning..." Sunday in 1965was July 18th.
The Disneyland News was an in-park publication that was sold in 1955. It states that opening day was July 18th.
A book titled "Images of America Anaheim 1940-2007", Copyrighted in 2007 by the suthor, Stephen J. Faessel and published by Arcadis Publishing states on page 27, "Just seven weeks after the its public opening on July 18, 1955..."
From the book "Spinning Disney's World" by Charlie Ridgway, published in 2007 by The Intripid Traveler he states... "For months leading up to the grand opening of Disneyland on July 18, 1955, people were talking about it. Everyone wanted to be the first ones inside.
Disney scheduled a Press Preview on July 17, with the park open by invitation to journalists, celebrities, and many, many other people who were asked to come for one reason or another."
Clearly the former Disney's Director of Press and Publicity states that Opening day was July 18th, 1955.
Let me once again quote from the Wikipedia link mentioned above "Identifying reliable sources".
>>The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or on-line. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet.<<
So we have many books and newspaper articles that are considered "Reliable Sources", backed up with Primary Sources (Disneyland Press Releases), where the only thing is a direct quote, no interpretation is needed, as they match up with the Third Party references.
I am once again going to place the paragraph back in the main article, as it is clear from multiple sources that July 18th was the day celebrated while Walt Disney was alive.GeorgeKelsey (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Walt Disney disagrees with that. Watch This video on Youtube. At 11:53, Walt Disney himself and in his own voice says that "on July 17,1955 the park opened its gates to all people from all over the world". So your statement is incorrect.--JOJ Hutton 11:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- It comes down to the way the events happen, and why we talk about "Dedication Day", which is also known as the "International Press Preview" day (What was printed on the special tickets from July 17th, and Opening Day, July 18th. Walt Disney actually read the dedication on both July 17th, and July 18th. In fact, many of the photographs taken of Walt Reading the Dedication come from the 18th. You can tell due to the lighting and the shawdows, and what is around them. Due to the ABC Television Broadcast on Sunday the 17th, the dedication was read around 4 PM, but was not photo friendly to the press photographers. When Walt Disney did the dedication on Opening Day, Monday the 18th, the press could get up and close in the morning. In some of the shots, you can see the Clock at the Train Station. If it is around 11 AM, it is a shot from opening day, a 4 PM time would be from the International Press Preview/Dedication Day. The video has him reading a "dedication" and has no real bearing on when the park opened. As stated earlier, there are photos of Walt Disney cutting Birthday cake on both the 5th and 10th Anniversary in the local newspaper, and that day was July 18th.GeorgeKelsey (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- That Walt Disney read the dedication speech on both days is questionable, but is likely true after looking at the pictures myself, although there is no source that I have seen and anything we say is WP:OR without one. That isn't the question however. The two dates are already mentioned in the article, so that isn't of contention. What you are trying to say is that Disneyland considered the 18th as the parks birthday and not the 17th, but that is not true at all. Even Walt Disney said that the 17th was opening day. But, to be fair, I did just come across this source from the OC register, which says that the 10 year anniversary (Tencennial) was celebrated on the 17th of July, but also says that the 5 year anniversary was celebrated on the 18th of July. So there is, at least in part, some truth to the fact that the birthday celebrations were at least celebrated on the 18th for a few years. So if you want to annotate that information you should go ahead, but what you have in the article now, is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS.--JOJ Hutton 02:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- It comes down to the way the events happen, and why we talk about "Dedication Day", which is also known as the "International Press Preview" day (What was printed on the special tickets from July 17th, and Opening Day, July 18th. Walt Disney actually read the dedication on both July 17th, and July 18th. In fact, many of the photographs taken of Walt Reading the Dedication come from the 18th. You can tell due to the lighting and the shawdows, and what is around them. Due to the ABC Television Broadcast on Sunday the 17th, the dedication was read around 4 PM, but was not photo friendly to the press photographers. When Walt Disney did the dedication on Opening Day, Monday the 18th, the press could get up and close in the morning. In some of the shots, you can see the Clock at the Train Station. If it is around 11 AM, it is a shot from opening day, a 4 PM time would be from the International Press Preview/Dedication Day. The video has him reading a "dedication" and has no real bearing on when the park opened. As stated earlier, there are photos of Walt Disney cutting Birthday cake on both the 5th and 10th Anniversary in the local newspaper, and that day was July 18th.GeorgeKelsey (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting that you picked the specific OC Register piece, that talks about Saturday the 17th as the “Tencennial Re-Dedication Day,” If you go back to the Anaheim Bulletin articles FYI, the Anaheim Bulletin merged with OC Register) that can be found at the Anaheim Museo (the Darkbeer.smugmug.com web page has a copy of the articles), you will see it was a multi-day event, they started the parade on Saturday, partly for marketing, to bring in paying guests on the weekend. But there is a photo of Walt Disney, the Disneyland Ambassador, and Mickey Mouse cutting the cake on Sunday, July 18, 1965. It also was the day that Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln opened at Disneyland, along with other main attractions. Also, July 18, 1967 was the re-opening of Tomorrowland, also due to the Anniversary date. GeorgeKelsey (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't "pick" anything. Its one of the very few articles that came up. I realize that you don't really know that you are doing it, because you are looking at the entire picture through your perceived POV, but you are adding your own interpretation and WP:SYNTHESIS to the section by going beyond what the article(s) are actually saying. You think that since they re-opened Tomorrowland on the 18th, that is somehow proof that they are celebrating the anniversary of Disneyland. You are adding your own interoperation to the source. You can't do that. You have done that with the other sources as well. Wikipedia doesn't add original research.--JOJ Hutton 12:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting that you picked the specific OC Register piece, that talks about Saturday the 17th as the “Tencennial Re-Dedication Day,” If you go back to the Anaheim Bulletin articles FYI, the Anaheim Bulletin merged with OC Register) that can be found at the Anaheim Museo (the Darkbeer.smugmug.com web page has a copy of the articles), you will see it was a multi-day event, they started the parade on Saturday, partly for marketing, to bring in paying guests on the weekend. But there is a photo of Walt Disney, the Disneyland Ambassador, and Mickey Mouse cutting the cake on Sunday, July 18, 1965. It also was the day that Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln opened at Disneyland, along with other main attractions. Also, July 18, 1967 was the re-opening of Tomorrowland, also due to the Anniversary date. GeorgeKelsey (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
"W. Disney visited the Efteling"... no evidence of that.
Please check sources !! They are available.
(1) It seems to be an urban legend he visited the Efteling (The Netherlands), while all sources FROM the Efteling contradict it.
(2) It seems to be correct however, he did visit Madurodam (The Netherlands), which is not mentioned in the article. It is very interesting to study the intricate concepts from Madurodam (1952), that influenced Disneyland, and are not mentioned.
Just a few :
- concept of walling off the park (a high dam build around Madurodam) so that visitors inside the park could not see the outside world.
- concept of actually planning a coherent "world"
- concept of trains running completely around the park
- concept of pain stakingly lifelike detail
:: You mean 'painstakingly'. 'Taking pains, (special care) not ' staking pains'.
- concept of having different time periods on show (historic and contemporary were present in Madurodam, only future was not on show) as well as different activity sections (Lands? ... the city center, the peasant countryside, the wild nature,...)
Even when Madurodam is a miniature town, scale 1:25, the concepts as such coincide.
I believe it inspired W.Disney on general concept brainstorming level, and it also inspired again, more directly, on the "Storybook Canal Boats + Casey Jr. Circus Train" park-in-the-park, where the concept repeats itself. The original attraction was called Canal Boats of The World, and build as completely high dammed park, train circling, minitature buildings representing places from all over the world (never build, theme changed to fairy tales in the 2nd year after opening). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.23.18.173 (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're right. It has been proven to be false that Disney visited the Efteling. [1] Why can't this page be edited? Pelopje (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Controversies
I know Disneyland has their fare share of controversies. For instance, a woman who wished to wear her religious hijab to work was denied by Disneyland due to uniform standards.
This is just one that I can think of off the top of my head.
Why aren't any controversies that Disneyland Resort, Anaheim listed in the article? I'm just curious. I know a simple google search could list them.
Thanks. --99.108.248.29 (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)HypoAllergenicJin
Park Layout, New Orleans Square
The following statement is incorrect:
"Also included are the Mark Twain Riverboat, the Sailing Ship Columbia, and Pirate's Lair on Tom Sawyer Island. The above-mentioned attractions are sometimes mistakenly placed as Frontierland attractions."
According to Disney's website (http://disneyland.disney.go.com/disneyland/new-orleans-square/ and http://disneyland.disney.go.com/disneyland/frontierland/) the Mark Twain Riverboad, Sailing Ship Columbia, and Pirates Lair on Tom Sawyer island are in Frontier Land and not in New Orleans Square, as state. Park maps also verify this. 72.200.119.4 (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- You are correct. Disney's website does indeed describe these attractions as being in Frontierland, not New Orleans Square. I corrected the article. Primogen (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Nothing about The Republic of the Children
According to the official web page of the City of La Plata (Argentina), Walt Disney got inspired by the theme park Republic of the Children in that city. There is no mention about it in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oskyfv1989 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you can find a reliable source mentioning that, then feel free to add it to the article. David1217 What I've done 03:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- As Walt didn't went to Argentina between 1951 and 1955, it's hard to imagine that the argentine park may influence him. --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 15:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Transportation section says "turn-of-the-19th-Century"
The transportation section says "Each turn-of-the-19th-Century train departs..." That sounds like 1800 to me, not 1900. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.197.33 (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Double-checked definition then changed to 1900s-era. Elf | Talk 23:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Disneyland Ticket Price Increase
2013 Price increase: $92, let's adjust the chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulcmartens (talk • contribs) 19:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I remember visiting the park in 1985. It was the 30th anniversary and adult ticket prices were $12.50. Why is it listed as $17.95? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.246.4 (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Renominating for Featured Article
With the 58th birthday of the park coming up, I'd like to resubmit this page for Featured Article status. Anybody know any issues with the page that need to be fixed in the immediate future? Neo12345292 (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think GA would be a better goal to set, along with an extension of that timeline. Although the article is detailed there are lots of problems with it:
- large parts of unsourced content
- a citation needed tag
- a section with a references needed tag
- graphs haven't been updated for up to 4 years
- deadlinks
- unformatted references
- no alt text
- there shouldn't be a gallery of images
- unreliable sources: Sean Russia's Blog, Just Disney, Island Net and more
- and more
- Themeparkgc Talk 22:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Good point. I'm dealing with alt text now Neo12345292 (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Proposed deletions of sections/info
I suggest that the theatrical terminology section be removed and the fireworks section be consolidated. The schedule from 2009 should probably be removed in my opinion. Neo12345292 (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Tivoli Gardens
According to the Disney documentary, "Walt, The Man Behind The Myth" (2001), Disneyland was inspired by Tivoli Gardens (or simply Tivoli) a famous amusement park and pleasure garden in Copenhagen, Denmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.185.88 (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Relocation of photos to Gallery
I am curious as to why so many of the photos were moved to a gallery section? Is that a result of some new policy or guideline? I think the article was a lot more attractive before that was done. It looks more sterile and uninviting now and my speculation is that fewer will bother to read it with this revised format. Was there any discussion before that major revision or was it just some editor's preference? EditorASC (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. May I propose it be moved back to the original format? Neo12345292 (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Splash Mountain
Splash Mountain has an image under 'Lands'. I'm pretty sure Splash Mountain is not a land? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.225.175.237 (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Whatever used to be there isn't; there's one photo per land and all of the lands are correct at this time. Elf | Talk 23:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
ticket price chart should be adjusted for inflation
it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.3.130 (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- We need some sort of documentation on actual prices in the park to update the article. If you're suggesting how Disneyland should do things, we have no control over that. Elf | Talk 23:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Merge from Paint the Night Parade
It looks like a merge was proposed but no discussion was started here. Lets wait for the AfD on Paint the Night Parade to close first, but given that there should be a lot in common between the Hong Kong and US parades, it doesn't make much sense to split the article into sections on two different pages. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Star Wars Land park expansion announced
So, this is a thing that's happening, apparently: http://comicbook.com/2015/08/15/star-wars-land-announced-for-disneyland-and-disney-world-/
Not sure where they're going to put it. Only thing I can think of is if they tear up the big parking lot just west of the California Adventure Park, put Star Wars Land there, and convert one of the other open parking lots into a multi-level parking garage to pick up the slack. SilverlightPony (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Created the article Star Wars Land. Could be expanded but there is time.--JOJ Hutton 21:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
60th Anniversary end date
The Disneyland 60th Anniversary Diamond Celebration end date has been announced via the DisneyParks Blog. The last day will be September 5th, 2016.[1] Gamedays (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- ^ Glover, Erin. "Disneyland Resort Diamond Celebration Continues Through September 5, 2016". DisneyParks Blog. Disney. Retrieved 22 September 2015.
Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2015
 | This edit request to Disneyland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2602:301:77B4:EBD0:F8AC:9627:9311:7634 (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done: No edit proposed. --McDoobAU93 03:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
