User talk:Whoville/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Whoville. 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

Welcome!

Hello, Whoville/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ManoaChild 04:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Upland, California

I don't understand why you removed the local politics item from Upland, California. It is the truth isn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tcccfriends (talk • contribs) 23:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

Links to fan pages

Can we discuss the removal of links to all fan sites. (I'm not talking about the removal of links to the Disney Trivia book/webpage, which clearly appears to be linkspam. Nice job there.)

I understand the guidelines that discourage the use of fan sites. In many cases, however, the unofficial sites describing attractions contain a lot more information and pictures than our articles do, which, to me, justifies the existance of a small number of links to pages that deal with individual attractions. The obvious solution to the problem is to improve the articles, so that we no longer need the additional sites to suppliment the article, but I simply don't see that happening in the forseeable future.

In any case, I welcome your feedback. ManoaChild 04:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. DoomBuggies.com is a good example; an exhaustive encyclopedia about Disney's Haunted Mansion attraction. Many of the "fan site" links in the Wikipedia entries for Disney's theme park attractions have been pointing to more mundane sites that are more like online guidebooks with little more than the basic who/what/where facts already covered by the parent entry. If you feel a useful link has been lost put it back, as is your right. Whoville 13:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I do understand your concern about "guidebook sites". My main concern is that some of the attraction pages have so little content on them, that any additional information is an improvement. I'll be restoring some of those links. If you have any objections, feel free to discuss it on the attraction talk page or on my talk page. ManoaChild 22:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Cars

See [1] and [2] for lengthy discussions. The Copyeditor 02:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page. 65.222.216.15 00:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Disney Park

I just find it strange that it's nowhere online to be seen. I saw it with my own eyes, and even if it was fake, I still think it would've been noticed by someone else. I didn't see that the link I provided was so old, though. Sorry about that. But maybe we should add a bit in the article about Beijing's hopes to construct a new theme park, using the link your provided as a source? --The monkeyhate 17:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is rather embarassing. That was indeed what I saw (our guide said it was a Disneyworld under construction, though). Sorry about this whole mess, I should've checked my sources better. --The monkeyhate 15:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing external links to the Disney World page

Whoville, you removed an external link in the Disney World page and tagged it as linkspam. I would respectfully ask why. My wife wrote the site. She is a Florida resident and she goes to Disney World at least twice a month. I think she has a better perspective than many other guides who claim to know everything about the parks etc, but in fact are just gathering information from other written sources. I believe the mission of Wikipedia is to give reader facts and also the option to visit external sources as long as they are legitimate and (in this case) marked as unofficial. Although there are adwords ads on the site, they are clearly marked as such. The site itself does not sell any services. I have been travelling around the world all my life and the very first thing I learned is to ask locals when I get there. Nobody knows better. I think readers can benefit from a local's perspective which is fresh and continuosly updated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fabiob62 (talk • contribs) on 20 November 2006.

Hannah Montana

Why did you put that horrible thing on the Hannah Montana article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Punk-Lova (talk • contribs) 9 January 2007.

What are you talking about? I reverted a POV edit [3] on the Miley Cyrus article. Whoville 05:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have mistaken you for the person who posted a bad message in my hurry [4] Punk-Lova 20:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on my school's wiki page! Sincerely JBHSBandGeek 17:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Castle Suite WAS originally intended for Walt Disney

Yes, he was dead by the time most of construction was done, but it is indeed true that the space was originally set aside for a personal apartment for the Walt Disney Family. It was still intended to be completed for Roy, but it was never finished and was used for many years as the home for WDW telephone operators and then in later years for storage. It was never turned into a suite until the promotion last year for the Year of a Million Dreams.

This is said over and over in official and unofficial sources, and appears in most officially sanctioned documentaries (History Channel's Modern Marvels, and Travel Channel's "Walt Disney World Behind The Scenes"). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.69.237.54 (talk • contribs) 6 July 2007.

Disney-MGM Studios

Thanks for your edits in the Backlot section. They do read a lot better. I think the article is starting to improve significantly, but there's still plenty that can be done. --McDoobAU93 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey again. I saw how you fixed the new name in the article subhead on Night of Joy. I wrote the original piece, and had initially put "Disney-MGM Studios" in there. I have a feeling a user, in good faith, changed it to the new name without fully correcting it to show the possessive form. However, I'm wondering if it should still be listed as Disney-MGM Studios until the official changeover in January 2008. I know the article says the name is changing, but at the same time the article should reflect how things are today. Opinions? --McDoobAU93 20:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"Completed" and "Ongoing" television series

Hello, I saw your comment about the use of "completed" to describe TV shows. I feel the same as you, and have created a discussion at WikiProject Television about this issue. Feel free to check it out and comment. Here is a link Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#.22Completed.22_and_.22ongoing.22_series_OR_User:Loansince -NatureBoyMD 01:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

For your help with the Brady Bunch template. I just put this together ver fast and was going to fix it but you had already done so when I checked on it today. Remember 13:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Disney's Wedding Pavilion

A tag has been placed on Disney's Wedding Pavilion, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Toddst1 (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I declined the speedy deletion request, since you appear to have worked on other articles regarding Disney and other theme parks. Still, you may want to consider rewording the article somewhat so it doesn't create concerns about advertising. Maybe some external reviews or some outside claims of notability would help. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)