Jump to content

Talk:Walt Disney World/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Walt Disney World Mike Cline (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


Walt Disney World Resort → Disney World – For the same reason we use Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton), Guinea pig (not Cavia porcellus), United Kingdom (not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), etc., etc. as the titles of those articles: WP:COMMONNAME. Per the Google test, "Disney World" gets about 10x as many hits as "Walt Disney World Resort". Clearly the topic of this article is primary for Disney World since it redirects here, so there is no reason to not use the much more common, natural, recognizable and concise name. Born2cycle (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

True, "Disney World" is a very common usage for the park, but there are 4 theme parks in the resort. We shouldn't move to such an ambiguous title. Not clear what you think is getting absurd – is there a move some place to use official names more? I haven't noticed such a trend. Dicklyon (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, though I would support "Walt Disney World". To those familiar with the topic, the bare "Disney World" name sounds amateurish and non-professional. It does not make for an encyclopedic tone. (cf. Britannica) Powers T 19:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    • First, that's a red herring since Brittanica's article naming standards have always differed from Wikipedia's, and, in particular, generally prioritize official names over commonly used names more often that we do. Second, the notion of avoiding the most commonly used name because it "sounds sounds amateurish and non-professional" to LtPowers is not supported by WP:CRITERIA or anything at WP:AT. This is the epitome of the WP:JDLI argument. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Updated --Born2cycle (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Nonsense. First of all, WP:COMMONNAME does not require us to examine colloquial, conversational usage. It asks us to look at reliable sources, giving more credence to reliable sources that are about the topic rather than those that merely mention it in passing. If you actually look at sources about Walt Disney World, such as the ones cited in this article, you will find that the current title, and simply "Walt Disney World", are both far more commonly present in such sources than not. Furthermore, COMMONNAME is not our only criterion. We also strive to be accurate and consistent with our titling, and by those measures your proposed title fails spectacularly. Accusing everyone you with whom you disagree of posting JDLI arguments is getting tiresome. Powers T 17:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Like Powers, I'm inclined to support "Walt Disney World", based on familiar usage, but I'm not sure the pared down "Disney World" is the title to use. —C.Fred (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I strongly oppose this proposed move. "Disney World" is the name of the original concept for Disney's Florida property. What came to fruition and what we see today is irrefutably the "Walt Disney World Resort". Walt Disney designed the original concept for the Florida Project and named it "Disney World". However, after Walt's untimely death, his brother Roy renamed the project "Walt Disney World" in his memory and insisted that it be called this. Many stories tell of Roy angrily reacting to various Disney employees referring to the project as merely "Disney World". "Disney World" is not what exists in Florida today, and is in fact, very different from the "Walt Disney World Resort".
As Wikipedians, we have the responsibility to provide the most accurate information we can. Renaming an article simply because there are many people who refer to its topic by the improper name is not upholding that responsibility. I could support a proposal to rename the article "Walt Disney World", if it was determined here that a renaming absolutely needs to take place, but dropping "Walt" from the article title completely is not only inaccurate, but also a slight to the memory of both Walt and Roy.
I apologize if I come off too strongly, but I hold the memory of Walt Disney too near to my heart to comply in the removal of his association from what became of his final dream. Respectfully, —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 21:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC).
" Renaming an article simply because there are many people who refer to its topic by the improper name is not upholding that responsibility.". Ah, well, that's where you're mistaken. We don't decide what is the "proper" or "improper" name for our article titles. We reflect what reliable sources use most commonly to refer to the topics of our articles. There are considerations too, like concision, and these are all laid out at WP:AT (WP:CRITERIA in particular), but identifying the proper name is simply not among them. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Jclavet brings up a very good point that again proves this renaming won't work. The original concept for the Florida property was indeed named Disney World, and was called that by Walt himself. However, the facility in place now is properly called "Walt Disney World". Because it diverged so significantly from the "Disney World" concept that they really are two different entities. For a related example, please see that we have two articles related to what was often called Walt's last dream: the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow, also known by its acronym, EPCOT. The Florida property currently has a park named Epcot, but that is a different facility and thus a different article. I would counter that renaming this Disney World would get in the way of a future article about the Disney World concept, before it became Walt Disney World soon after Walt's death. If a spirited user, such as Jclavet, were to come along and want to write an article about the Disney World concept, he could not without starting yet another move request. --McDoobAU93 22:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I hear "the one with all the countries" way more often than "Epcot". Should we move that article? —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 00:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
That would be relevant if "Disney World" was not commonly used to refer to the topic of this article. But it is, and nobody is even arguing to the contrary. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Definite WP:COMMONNAME case. Common usage refers to this park in a parallel manner to its western counterpart: there's Disneyland and Disney World (I don't know why one is one word and one is two, but they sound alike when spoken). --BDD (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
You have just made a great point for the opposition. People talk about "Disney World" all the time without even realizing what it is. First off, Walt Disney World is not a park. It is a recreational resort with numerous theme parks, resort hotels, and other entertainment centers. Walt Disney World is not the Eastern counterpart to Disneyland, although you might say it is the Eastern counterpart to the Disneyland Resort. Had you had read my explanation above regarding the origins of its name, you might understand "why one is one word and one is two". And lastly, the two names and how "they sound alike when spoken" has absolutely nothing to do with this proposed page move. —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 03:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
That is true ... in a lot of cases, "Disney World" is used to refer to the Magic Kingdom portion of the Walt Disney World complex. For example, someone may say, "We went to Epcot in the morning, then to Disney World for the fireworks". --McDoobAU93 03:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, that's fine. Your explanation is enlightening, and could fit very well into the article itself with WP:RS. But it's not relevant to the WP:COMMONNAME policy. I think if you want to oppose this request, you'll have to do one of two things: either argue that "Disney World" is not the common name for the resort, or argue in terms of another policy that can trump WP:COMMONNAME in this case. Reading over your comments, it sounds like you're arguing for the official name, but as you'll see from that page, official names are only relevant here when there's nothing else to go by. As Born2cycle pointed out, trying to suss out the right or wrong names here isn't the issue. Finally, this isn't a decision to be made based on how much we respect Walt Disney or what he called anything; that's just a complete red herring here. --BDD (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


Walt Disney World → Walt Disney World Resort – Walt Disney World Resort is the official name of the complex; moving the page to Walt Disney World appeared to have much opposition. Disneyland is titled by its official name, Disneyland Resort. There was no need to have moved it in the first place, because the article had been named Walt Disney World Resort for a while. 75.130.102.69 (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose Was just recently moved to this tittle and its common on Wikipedia to use the common name. In fact it's a guideline. JOJ Hutton 15:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose the Pertinent things to take into account are the essay Wikipedia:Official names and the policy WP:COMMONNAME which shows that we don't use a name simply because it is official. The only other reason sated, the fact that the original name was used for a while, is not even remotely a strong enough reason to dismiss the recent consensus to change to the current name. In short, it's irrelevant.--70.49.83.129 (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the last RM; see my comments there. The current title seems like a good one. Dicklyon (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I believe the nominator also misread the previous move discussion. The original proposal in that debate was to move the page to "Disney World". Many opposed that specific name, but suggested "Walt Disney World" as a compromise as a more common name. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Exactally, while some who did object wanted to keep the old title most of them did so because suggested that Walt Disney World was better than Disney World and specifically said that they accepted that name. In the end most user actually supported the current name.--70.49.83.129 (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose there was just a move to this name. As per WP:COMMONNAME, I oppose. TBrandley 17:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose but I support the current Walt Disney World title without "Resort," because locals and cast members refer the the Walt Disney World Resort as Walt Disney World, and in writing we abbreviate it as WDW not WDWR. I must note that many guests mistakenly refer to Magic Kingdom as Disney World, but I believe that the way these pages are redirected and referenced in their current form prevents any confusion.ihafez (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Note that we have an article at Disneyland Resort because Disneyland redirects to Disneyland Park. The ambiguity makes the shorter names undesirable; here there is no such ambiguity (except for the small number of people who refer to the Magic Kingdom as "Disney World", but that's rather secondary). Powers T 00:29, 9 October 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

AULANI

i don't understand why aulani resort is mentionned on the walt disney world complex, it's a particular restort nothing to do with it

(83.154.127.99 (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC))

I agree, doubly since it was in a list of on-site resorts. Since it and two other beach resorts are not on the WDW campus—or in the cause of Aulani, not even on the same continent—I've removed all three. —C.Fred (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Ya beat me to it, Fred. Totally agree there's no reason to include any of the off-site DVC properties here. --McDoobAU93 15:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Union Campaign

Why is there no section on the union representation in Disney on this article?

This is a significant aspect of the workplace and certainly deserves mention at least, if not its own section KurtFF8 (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Lots of employers have union workers. What makes Walt Disney World unique in that respect? Some form of notability would be needed to merit inclusion of such information in the article. --McDoobAU93 16:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
There have been various disputes with labor for example this http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1999-11-30/business/9911290266_1_walt-disney-disney-world-equity-association and this http://www.wdwforgrownups.com/category/tags/labor-dispute Disney World is a major part of Florida's prominence, so disputes with its own employees are significant historically and today KurtFF8 (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Lots of companies have had disputes with their labor unions. And I daresay that Florida itself would contest your statement that WDW is a "major part of Florida's prominence", since Florida had been a tourist destination and a desirable place to live and work for decades before Uncle Walt came to visit. Again, what makes a union dispute with Disney notable compared to other companies with similar issues? --McDoobAU93 16:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
KurtFF8 - is your concern that there is no discussion of Union on an encyclopedic Walt Disney World article, or that there is no talk of Disney on an article about Unions? No doubt that there are news articles about union/Disney relationships - the question is how does it fit in here as part of an encyclopedic entry on WDW vs elsewhere in WP? SpikeJones (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
McDoob, Yes I think that companies that have labor disputes should have those facts included as part of their history. I don't see why the building of a new building/new product line/etc is any more important to understanding the history of a company or workplace than labor disputes.
SpikeJones, my concern is essentially the above: there is a strange omission of labor disputes in the history of this park. I think that it is just as an important part of the history of Disney World as facts about property taxes and district zoning (which is present in the history section at the moment) KurtFF8 (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
In all honesty, your desire to include this comes across more as POV-pushing than a desire to inform. Unless some significant event occurs (such as the closure of Eastern Airlines and Hostess Brands after strikes, or a major disruption in park activities that affects guests), it's just not that notable. --McDoobAU93 16:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
KurtFF8 - do you have an example of how other company/location/business pages incorporated information about union items into their articles? Do you have enough material to write a complete encyclopedic union-related article about Disney in entirety (rather than focused strictly on WDW)? I encourage you to look bigger in your goals of expanding the fact-based, notable, non-POV, reported by reputable third party, union-related info that is present already on WP rather than be concerned over a perceived missing sentence in this location. SpikeJones (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I will say that I don't have other articles in mind as an example, but my original point is that this article in question is quite descriptive of the history of the theme park attractions, building expansions, etc. For example, to include minor details of particular park expansions and not include something about the people who operate and built the said parks doesn't seem to make sense to me. It's not just a case of POV pushing, as there have been multiple newsworthy events when it comes to this question. And if anything, the "Employment" section should at least contain mention of the strong presence of a union, which in Florida makes it an exceptional workplace. KurtFF8 (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
How do you define "strong presence"? I have no issue with including mention that a number of the employees at the property are members of a union, and I agree that the "Employment" subhead would be the best place for it instead of its own separate section (per WP:UNDUE). How about giving us an idea of what you'd like the section to say here? --McDoobAU93 21:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I think that a new section wouldn't make sense considering there's an employment section. I was thinking at least adding a sentence or two that the employees are a part of a union and that there have been various disputes between the union and the company. KurtFF8 (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm cool with mentioning the presence of a union; go further and make sure the union is named and cited (of course). As to disputes, those are very common within any organization with a union workforce. Anything notable in that regard that would demand inclusion? For example, take a look at Delta Air Lines, a generally non-union company. There have been notable disputes that are mentioned in that article, but nothing saying that they occur. --McDoobAU93 15:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Change in Resorts

I changed the number of categories in resorts from five to four due to there only being 4 levels. Minor edit, of an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momentumlost (talk • contribs) 05:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Minimum wage employees living out of hotels

Has anyone actually read the Sac Bee article (archive.org link here) that is being used to source the second half of this edit, that people are edit warring over? (The first half, about IT outsourcing, is discussed above. I'm talking about the second half, about Disney's homeless minimum wage employees living in hotels.

The claim that "Many of the employees at Disney World are paid minimum wage" isn't even true, according to the source. The Sac Bee article (archive.org link here) says that starting pay at Disney World was $8.03/hour. Minimum wage in Florida in 2014 was $7.93. (Subsequent to this article, Florida minimum wage has gone up to $8.05 and Disney's minimum pay has gone up to $10/hour.) So it's completely false to say "Many of the employees at Disney World are paid minimum wage" - that is not true now and was not true in 2014.

And the claim that there are "up to 1,216 families of Disney employees are living in budget hotels" is positively absurd. That's kinda like saying, "Person XYZ has murdered up to 10 billion people." Actually, he has murdered zero people, but zero is a number that is up to 10 billion. According to the (source), there were an estimated 1,216 homeless households with children in the county in which Disney World is located. Some of those 1,216 homeless households have both parents unemployed. Some have one parent working. Some have both working. Some, it is possible, might work for Disney World. Others might work for McDonald's. Others might be running a meth lab. To say there are up to 1,216 working for Disney is absurd - the actual article doesn't tell us how many work for Disney.

If you actually read the article, it doesn't have a thing in this world to do with Disney other than that Disney is a big employer in the area. The article does not say that there are Disney employees living in hotels, nor even if there is a SINGLE BLESSED ONE. It would be nice to read the source before edit warring over inclusion of the passage. --B (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for edification, B! I guess that pretty much settles the question. Onel5969 (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Fully concur with B's lucid and incisive analysis. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree that the second paragraph of this change does not accurately present the source cited. Good catch B; I should not have accepted it without checking. Live and learn :-( Tom Harrison Talk 11:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Employment/outsourcing

Two items were added recently to the Employment section of the article, one saying many employees make minimum wage and are forced to live in nearby motels as there are apparently no shelters in the immediate area, and the other was a story about how employees were laid off, but after they had trained their foreign replacements. Both of these appear to be an attempt to link Disney to a hot button issue, and that is just one reason why they should be removed. The other reason these items were removed was because these additions do not represent a unique situation that is occurring just at Disney.

It's no secret that Disney hires a number of workers at minimum wage, as do many other businesses around the country for entry-level and minimum-skill positions, and I would also surmise that a number of them will find themselves without affordable housing. While unfortunate and in need of change, Disney's not alone and shouldn't be singled out. The same goes for the apparent trend of companies replacing IT workers with foreign replacements, after the soon-to-be-unemployed worker trains the new contract hires. This article appeared almost a year ago, and this story appeared over three years ago. Again, this isn't new, and there's no reason to single out Disney unless the intent is to shame them in a high-traffic article.

I would recommend that these edits be added into articles about the minimum wage and about H1-B visas, since these would be examples that would bolster the discussion of those subjects more than it would do so here, where the statements would be giving excessive coverage to something that affects many other companies besides Disney.

--McDoobAU93 03:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like no one else has a strong opinion on this matter. So, it comes down to me and you either reaching a compromise, or reverting each other. Since I added the information first, it means you would cross the 3RR threshold first, so I win if I choose to continue. So far, I choose to continue. Cla68 (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Recent additions seem to be a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. McDoobAU93 makes cogent points above. Onel5969 (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems like some presentation of this is not undue weight. Tom Harrison Talk 14:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I have no problem with it being in the article. RoadWarrior445 (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Until we reach consensus, which clearly has not happened yet, might I suggest we leave the article as is. Having said that, not sure how a single recent hiring decision, which is a common business practice, warrants inclusion in this (or any) article. Onel5969 (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

For an example of what WOULD be a unique situation, look at the problems with SeaWorld. Blackfish did a number on them, warranted or otherwise, primarily because the animal in question currently resides at one of the company's parks, and its most recent incident (the one that all but inspired Blackfish) occurred in one of its parks. That's where coverage of a news story would indeed be warranted, as it is very unique to SeaWorld. If someone could explain why these stories are unique to Disney, I'd be more agreeable to having the information remain in the article. Without that, it fails WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. --McDoobAU93 21:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


I don't think this should be included because it's not unique to Disney World and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article (everyone's minimum wage workers struggle if they are raising a family on it, every big company has had laid off people in the unenviable position of training their replacement). The language is biased and comes from the media and their advocacy - we're supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. (IT workers are not "forced" to train their replacements. They can leave any time they want to. My employer does not "force" me to do my job - if I don't like it, I can leave. This isn't 100 years ago when you were chained to a sewing machine.) --B (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I agree with your statement. Using words which note a biased view such as something being "forced" is not something which an encyclopedia should contain. Additionally, when looking on the section of Employment, it seems that there is no proof from the cited page Hospitality Online stating that Walt Disney World does employ "more than 70,000 cast members". Perhaps a scholarly resource may be a better reference to use in this case. The Hospitality Online website does not seem to be a reliable source. Mvale086 (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Walt Disney World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Project's secrecy Section Rewrite

The section, Project's secrecy, needs to be rewritten due to the fact that almost the entire section is taken word for word from the Orlando Sentinel article, Disney Pulled Strings So Mouse Moved In With Barely A Squeak. Either the whole section should be in quotation marks, or it needs to be redone so that it is not plagiarizing. Elisfkc (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:COPYVIO, section has been completely removed. As pointed out above, it is almost verbatim the Sentinel article. Will continue the review to see what else needs to be removed. --McDoobAU93 18:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I've now gone back and rewrote the area and combined it with the initial subhead. It contains the key points of the Sentinel story, properly paraphrased and cited. Let me know if there are still problems that need addressing. --McDoobAU93 19:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Much better. Thanks Elisfkc (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Walt Disney World Size

User:Cindarella WDW, out of curiosity, where did you get the number for total acres? I can only find places that say that it's over 25,000 acres or roughly 40 square miles. Elisfkc (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

It seems that this talk page is too long/very dated. As such, I have enabled ClueBot III's sequentially numbered archives for this page. Elisfkc (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Closings

Is there any way that someone could add the closings of the resort due to hurricanes/tropical storms or other major events? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Morriswa: I went ahead and added the following public information (per your request) about safety related closures into the timeline, to ensure the article remains concise while remaining pertinent and up-to-date information.[1]

1) Sept. 4 and 5, 1999 Hurricane Frances (considered one closure for both days)
2) Sept. 15, 1999 Hurricane Floyd
- September 11, 2001 emergency evacuation
3) Sept. 26, 2004 Hurricane Jeanne
4) October 7, 2016 Hurricane Matthew
Thank you for the suggestion! ihafez talk 20:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed it, simply because the numbers did not add up (fourth, x, third, fourth). Also, the information is on the Magic Kingdom article. Elisfkc (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: I rolled back your good faith edits, since this information would be more useful on the resort-wide page, instead of being featured only on the Magic Kingdom page, since the closures affected all four parks, both theme parks, all hotels, and the shopping districts.
For clarification, 9/11 isn't considered a "closure" since it did not prevent the parks from opening, it only caused it to evacuate (in an impressive 30 minute window).ihafez talk 21:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the information to the article! Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ihafez: Read what you wrote for 1999, then 2004 & 2016. You went fourth, then third, then fourth again. Elisfkc (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: Thank you for the feedback! I went ahead and updated the above content and the article to ensure clairty for all readers! ihafez talk 21:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Walt Disney World closes for just fourth time ever as Hurricane Matthew nears". cnbc.com. CNBC. Retrieved 12 October 2016.

Selfie stick bannd at Disney Parks.

According to InsidetheMagic, Disney is no longer use selfie sticks.[1] Now talk a look and see it at Selfie Sticks banned at all Walt Disney World theme parks on YouTube97.73.150.149 (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Joshua Raymond Hahn

Yes, that's well-known. However, why is it encyclopedic? How important is it to the long-term history of the parks? Before responding, I would recommend reading this section to clarify my line of questioning. --McDoobAU93 13:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Because Earlier in the morning, Disney Theme Parks had officially banned Selfie Sticks. Because the sign says "Handheld camera/cell phone extension poles, such as selfie sticks, are prohibited Theme Parks, Water Parks, and DisneyQuest. For More Information, Please visit Guest Relations"172.164.28.160 (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Joshua Raymond Hahn
Again, why is this important to the long-term history of the resort? The addition of a park/hotel is notable, and the closing of a park/hotel is notable. How is this notable? --McDoobAU93 15:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm with McDoobAU93 here. They also banned lots of costumes and the ability to bring weapons up to the main entrance & then check them with guest relations. However, that's not encyclopedic either. If we add every time that a policy change is made, it will muck up the history of the resort too much. The fact that they banned selfie sticks is already noted on the Selfie stick article, where an argument could be made that it's encyclopedic, since that could be seen as opposition to the product. However, as a whole, the banning of selfie sticks isn't really important enough to include in the history of Walt Disney World.Elisfkc (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
^^^ That is a very good point. Being banned from use is very important in the history of the selfie stick itself, but not very important in the history of the places that have banned it. --McDoobAU93 18:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jervis, Rick (26 June 2015). "Disney joins growing number of venues banning selfie sticks". USA Today. Retrieved 26 June 2015.

Merge Proposal 2016

I'm going to propose that Disney Global Security be merged into either Walt Disney World or Disneyland Resort. I am unsure of the merit Disney Global Security has as its own page as compared to a piece of the mentioned pages, since the content can be easily explained in the other page(s). This is also missing information about the rest of The Walt Disney Company Security. This focus on one segment of the company, and the question of merit as its own page lead me to this. Neo12345292 (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge. Doesn't seem notable based on the sources (both types of self sourcing) and nothing much that pops out as major coverage. Although Walt Disney Parks and Resorts might be a better place. I think that security operation is more important and more likely cover at the parks given the amount of people that go there. Since, Parks and Resorts included the two Resorts plus the cruise line, off resort Vacation Club locations and more. Spshu (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Merge I agree that it's weird, and as far as Disney Parks articles go, it is kind of an orphan. It also does not seem to be notable. Elisfkc (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Merge. It is an orphan article so it's probably not as notable by itself. epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
A merge is fine, but this is not the correct target. It should be The Walt Disney Company. Powers T 16:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@LtPowers: Actually, if we want to be really specific, it should be Walt Disney Parks & Resorts. Elisfkc (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Well that's what I initially thought based on Spshu's comment, but the article says they're responsible for security at the company's other facilities in addition to the resort complexes and cruise ships. Powers T 00:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment – I'm not convinced it should be merged. For one, we don't have any agreement on which article it should be merged with. Second, there are non-primary sources cited in the article (although really there should be more). And finally, the length of the article means it would be a difficult merge into an already lengthy article. Length is one of the primary reasons subjects like this are split off, and any merger would mean trimming a lot of this down in the process. It's possible that much of the information is extraneous and can be trimmed, but I haven't seen that specifically discussed here, and it's definitely a big concern that needs to be addressed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - I think that the Disney World section should be merged into the Disney World page. The other sections should go in their respective pages. JeffreyLoeber (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Expansive References

This link has a lot to mention about Walt Disney World: https://archive.org/stream/thegamesmachine-26/TheGamesMachine_26_Jan_1990#page/n13 Deltasim (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Deltasim: A quick glance of that shows that most of that information is extremely outdated, but thanks anyways. Elisfkc (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

COVID-19 resort closure: reopening date

I believe that no reopening date should be mentioned for the resort because firstly I think this is misinformation if we put one date on there and change the date when we get closer to reopening. The other reason is per WP:CRYSTAL which I think is relevant in the current state of the world with COVID-19 which is making it hard to predict things like when the parks will reopen, We're not crystal ball and neither do we have one and including an opening date makes it look like that we have one, I believe that we should not and must not include any dates.I have also seen various new sites report that CM's are not scheduled in past April 1st either: https://comicbook.com/irl/2020/03/24/disney-world-cant-open-april-1-orlando-coronavirus-lockdown/ https://wdwnt.com/2020/03/update-orange-county-clarifies-walt-disney-world-cant-open-until-at-least-april-9th-in-reaction-to-public-confusion/

Current sources are saying that Disney World reopen on April 9th but I think that could get extended so until we have some further confirmation closer to April 9 I believe that we should just say " closed until further notice" in case we get a new date closer to April 9, (or the announced opening date) to see if there is another extension to the closure before including it on the page.

Pepper Gaming (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I've reworded it to say the closure is March 15–present. The source we're citing has Disney's initial announcement, which was through the end of the month. I've buried that in the prose. —C.Fred (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Cheers C.Fred its much better that way anyway and it would have had to be changed to until futher notice anyway with the recent announcement of them remaining closed until further notice

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacob21199.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"People trap" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect People trap. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

"List of Disneyworlds in America" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Disneyworlds in America. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Bonnet Creek

Why is Bonnet Creek listed as an *on-site* non-Disney resort? According to the article itself (and various other sources) the Bonnet Creek Resort is not actually on Disney owned property. It was a piece of land Disney was unable to buy and it was eventually sold to another developer and developed into the resort. This is distinct from other genuine on-site non-Disney hotels where Disney owns the land and leases it to other companies/organizations. Kidburla (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Size

The article states "The property covers nearly 25,000 acres" but I measured it on Acme Planimeter and I find only around 17,000 acres. There may have been some small differences in borders compared to the outline I drew but I don't think it will be so massive as to account for a difference of 8,000 acres, as the property is bordered on most sides by known non-Disney property (e.g. the Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress) or some non-Disney public land such as Bear Bay and Cypress Creek Swamp. I checked the source given and the exact quote from that source is "The Walt Disney Company acquired more than 25,000 acres in Central Florida and after seven years of preparation, including 52 months of construction, the first of four theme parks-Magic Kingdom Park--opened in 1971". This only says that it was 25,000 acres when the park first opened in 1971; I think the Disney company must have sold some land since then. I am not sure how to re-word as the source does not say that the land was sold, but it also does not say that it's still 25,000 acres even today (40 years after the resort opened). Kidburla (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Kidburla, I came to this talk page wondering the same thing (at least about the original size). In an interview with Bob Gurr, it was mentioned that there were over 27,000 acres, but on this page currently, it says 30,500 acres and cites this source. Now while I don't have access to view pages 68-70 referenced in the citation, on page 6 in a preview on Amazon, it actually states, "...the planning team had 27,443 acres at its disposal, compared to Disneyland's original 160 acres". I know this doesn't help with determining the current size, but 30,500 sounds inflated. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, I went ahead and made the correction. There's some info in the "Location" section that mentions some of that land was annexed/sold, so you may find what you're looking for there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walt_Disney_World/Archive_3&oldid=1219379189"