Jump to content

Talk:Disney Experiences/Archive 1

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

Logos instead of useless images

Despite the fact that The Walt Disney Company usually agrees ONLY to use logos instead of Copyrighted photos of attractions when people write something about its parks and resorts, on the Wikipedia page about "Disney Parks and Resorts" we must just list parks and resorts managed by Disney and not stress the attention of people on a particular ride or attraction. That means the only photos that should eventually be published are the ones that show the whole park and not just one attraction! The images are not meant as a representation of the entire park, or the resort for that matter. They are something at the resort. If you want the logo, you go to the resort's own page. Or on the article you could have both the logo and the image. I don't mind, I'm keeping the images whether you like it or not - it's up to you to decide if you want the logos as well. --Speedway 15:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Disneyland Beijing

I know for a fact that a Disneyland is currently being built just outside Beijing, China. Why doesn't this page mention that? -The monkeyhate 14:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Because no one else knows that for a fact. Disney consistently has denied reports of any new theme parks being built except for negotiations to possibly build a park in Shanghai no earlier than 2010. [1] Cite a credible source for the Beijing claim. —Whoville 14:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I visisted Beijing this summer, and there you could clearly see the constuction of a Disney Theme Park. Among other things, I saw a Cinderella Castle being built. It may, however, have been an "un-official" theme park. -The monkeyhate 12:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Your source for the claim that a Disney park is under construction in Beijing is this 2001 report. However, the January 2006 article cited above contains this statement directly from Disney:
Media reports that claim Disney is building a park in Beijing are inaccurate and not based on fact. Disney has no plans to build a park in Beijing at this time.
Please supply more credible evidence before making claims that a Disney theme park is under constructon in Beijing. Disney has never built a theme park without announcing it publicly first and you yourself admit that the Disney-esque construction in Beijing may not be an official Disney park. I have therefore removed your contribution (as follows). —Whoville 17:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The construction of a park in Beijing has begun and is reported to be complete by the time of the 2008 Olympic Games.

The existence of a Disney-like themepark in Beijing has been confirmed [2]. It is called Beijing Shijingshan Amusement Park, and it uses copies of varies Disney and non-Disney characters. Chinese copyright expires 50 years after the authors dead, which for Walt Disney is 1966+50=2016 so this would seem to be a copyright violation. In the US the Disney characters are also Trademarked which never expires, but I have no idea how/if that applies to China.

This park is definitely not an official Disney park, many things are imitations and it looks like Helly Kitty was ripped off as well. Here is a news story: [3] --blm07 11:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Singapore

Huaiwei: Since you immediately restored the content I removed, here is my reason for the edit. This contribution appears to be unverifiable speculation as defined by WP:NOT:

The company CEO Robert Iger's description of impending "indoor, compact"-styled parks may be a hint in reference to the Singaporean proposal.

The cited reference says this:

This small scale, and Singapore's hot weather, could lead to Disney adopting a new generation of indoor theme parks that its CEO Robert Iger floated last year in a Wall Street Journal report. He said there were "three or four entities in the world, locations with money, that are looking for site-based entertainment" - full rides and shows within a building. "I'll call them theme parks but they won't necessarily be along the same lines as parks we've built before ... In the next year to two years ... we will commit to creating a new concept or some entity outside the US," he said then. Analysts pointed out he could be hinting at Singapore. (emphasis mine)

"Analysts pointed out he could be hinting at Singapore" is not a fact. There is no comment from Iger or Disney anywhere in the article about the location he was describing with his "site-based entertainment" remark. Saying that Iger's comment "may be a hint" is speculation by any reasonable definition. —Whoville 14:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If you may understand WP:NOT a litte better, it forbids against unverifiable speculation, and not verifiable speculation. Wikipedia can write about the future, so long that this information is credibly sourced. The source [4] states that ""I'll call them theme parks but they won't necessarily be along the same lines as parks we've built before ... In the next year to two years ... we will commit to creating a new concept or some entity outside the US," he said then. Analysts pointed out he could be hinting at Singapore." This article then reports on these statements by saying "The company CEO Robert Iger's description of impending "indoor, compact"-styled parks may be a hint in reference to the Singaporean proposal". Thus, the statement here reflects the speculative stance in the original source. There is no reason why it should deny the existance of this speculation when it is properly sourced.--Huaiwei 14:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A lot of redundance

I've removed two paragraphs, one that explained the phenomenon of 'celebrations' and one that blurbed the concept of 'character interaction'. The article is getting a bit short this way, but unfortunately both paragraphs were utterly irrelevant and very badly written without sources. There must be far more important things to shed light on here. Any ideas? SergioGeorgini 15:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the celebrations section had to be removed. That is all. --blm07 17:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not universally relevant. Whether Disney is doing a 'Year of a Million Dreams' shtick or celebrates TDL's 25th birthday by dressing up the castle as a pinata is not important enough to be featured that prominently. It can be mentioned, but it shouldn't get its own paragraph in the Parks & Resorts article. Again, this is not a fan site nor an advertising platform. SergioGeorgini 10:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there going to have a disneyland in Philippines?

Is there going to have a disneyland in Philippines? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.3.107.170 (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:HCOElogo.jpg

Image:HCOElogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Grizzlypeak.jpg

Image:Grizzlypeak.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Disney Treasure Island?

What about the abandoned Treasure Island resort in the Bahamas, as mentioned here: http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/disney-blunder/default.php 67.149.28.67 17:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Abandoned project in Melbourne?

Reading [5], I've noticed it said that Disney wanted to put a Disneyland-like park in Melbourne, where the Werribee Open Range Zoo is, but failed. Is this worth putting in the article? 211.28.39.163 (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless that failure has meaning to the overall direction that WDP&R is going in, then I would say no. Disney's America (the development that was attempted in Virginia) has some relationship, as much of the design elements eventually ended up in DisneySea, if I am not mistaken. If all the Melbourne item was is related to a possible purchase, chances are it is not meaningful to include, as disney has possible purchases in many locations, such as Shanghai or Dubai. (Perhaps it could be included as a single "possible/rejected purchases" sentence with the others.) SpikeJones (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:DLRPlogo.jpg 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.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Potential areas of improvement

From a preliminary look through the article here are some comments:

  • Do we need to list the development of early Disneyland attractions in the timeline? Wouldn't that be more suited to the Disneyland article?
  • There is no mention on the history of the "Walt Disney Parks and Resorts" division itself in the main body. The lead indicates it began in 1971 but there should probably be some background for that.
  • All of the logos for the different divisions are mostly non-free and should probably be reduced.
  • Lists should be minimised and converted to prose where applicable.
  • The vast majority of information is unsourced.
  • The information in the future projects section is somewhat outdated. Is there some way we can tweak the section to minimise this in the future?
  • Do we need to list every President and VP for every park and division or can we prune this list?

There's a lot more than needs to be done but this is a start. I might get a chance to look at some of this issues later today, otherwise I will start contributing next weekend. Themeparkgc  Talk  01:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Edited: Themeparkgc  Talk  22:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Marvel Superheros Theme Park

If it is actually going up still, should Marvel Superheroes Theme Park be added to this article? I'm not even sure if it is going to be a Disney Park & Resort. Elisfkc (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

it is going to be a park&resort Silver baby (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
It is not a Disney Park & Resort location. --Spshu (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Strange edits by User:Spshu on 25 February 2015

Actually, it appears that Disney Destinations, LLC is merely a separate unit that interfaces with travel agencies. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. is the one that owns and operates the parks. Examples are here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4861696167154126424 and http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10254227236816592415 --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Noels case: "The Noels eventually booked a trip to the Disney Pop Century Resort through AAA New England. (Id.).[1] This vacation package had previously been sold to AAA New England by Walt Disney Travel Co., Inc. ("Disney Travel")." So, your initial assumption that Disney Destinations, LLC is a unit that interfaces with travel agencies may not be correct. Or it may, given this source I took that it was the over all WDP&R company: "Disney Destinations, LLC". US-EU Safe Harbor. Disney Company. Retrieved May 5, 2014., but may indicate a travel agency like status.
Your other case ARNALDO PINTO states in the header: "... v. WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC., FKA Walt Disney World Co.; ...", so WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC. was formerly name Walt Disney World Co. thus more likely Disney World not the parent company know as Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. In fact, Disney Destinations, LLC was formerly WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS, LLC.
Poking around State of Florida records some more turns up Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Worldwide, Inc., which has STAGGS, THOMAS O as a (Board) DIRECTOR and CROFTON, MEG as PRESIDENT. Also, its purpose is to be the administrative & support services of resorts & hospitality operations. So, it looks like Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Worldwide, Inc. is the business entity not Disney Destinations, LLC nor Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. Spshu (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Staff relations

Trying to be NPOV there, but I could have headed that "WDP&R fires all its IT staff, brings in foreign contract workers on H-1B visas", See Fury rises at Disney over use of foreign workers in Computerworld on April 29, 2015.

This apparently happened in October 2014, and the US workers 'finished' on 30 January, 2015. Similar thing happens in Australia, but for things like picking crops! IIRC. Just thinking this may be worth a mention on the page. 220 of Borg 10:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a division

To the IP editor that continually changes in the article entity type to "Division". There is clearly a source showing a "Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Worldwide, Inc." as a corporation listed with the State of Florida. Thus Walt Disney Parks and Resorts is clearly a subsidiary by definition. Please do not change this with out a excellent source. Spshu (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the phrase "wholly owned subsidiary", not "whole owned subsidiary"? I'm not taking a side in the dispute; just bothered by bad grammar, especially enshrined in an infobox. AtticusX (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is, thanks. --Spshu (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Why not Division? I notice it the only Disney business that does not have "Division" on the type and it known as Subsidiary.I hope that changes in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBMatBlood (talk • contribs) 11:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
No it is not the "only Disney business that does not have "Division" on the type..." Disney–ABC Television Group (ABC, Inc.) and Disney Interactive are Subsidiary. They are subsidiaries as they are corporations, which are indicated by "Inc.", "Corporation" and "Limited", or Limited liability company (LLC) like Marvel Entertainment, LLC and Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC and owned by another corporation. Therefore by definition they are subsidiaries. You may hope all you want but that doesn't changed the facts that Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Worldwide, Inc. is a corporation. Spshu (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Film adaptations

Regarding the film adaptation section, it is not trivia as one franchise's first four movies in the line has earned Disney over $5.4+ billion. It is a line that they pioneered, are pursuing and only media company do this type of films. The information was all sourced by reliable entertainment sources. Just because I made grammatical errors doesn't mean you revert the edit. You either tag it or make correction as this a cooperative effort. I had no problem tagging the section. Spshu (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Spshu: It may not be trivia, but it is not really all that relevant to the Parks & Resorts article in my mind. The article is more about the resorts, parks, and the division/subsidiary as a whole, while this adaptations section focuses only on specific attractions. Elisfkc (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I can see where you are coming from, Elisfkc. But as indicated in the article, there is suppose to be a whole line of films based on rides, attractions and themed areas (Tommorrowland) that one could call the film line, the Disney Parks and Resort motion picture line. Basically, this division subsidiary is being mined as inspiration for films. Spshu (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, note that most attractions are in multiple parks:
  • Tower of Terror is or was in WDW's Hollywood Studios, Tokyo DisneySea, Disney Studios Park (Paris), and Disney California Adventure.
  • Pirates of the Caribbean - five parks
  • Mission to Mars - two parks
  • Country Bear Jamboree - three parks
  • Haunted Mansion - three parks
  • Mr. Toad's Wild Ride - two parks
  • Tomorrowland theme area - six parks
  • Big Thunder Mountain Railroad - four parks
  • Jungle Cruise - four parks
If it focused on just one theme area or theme park then that would probably be a good place to put the section, but there isn't just one park or resort involved. Another option for the section's location is the Film adaptation article. The section just needed at least one more major source to show that it is notable and can be moved to its own article. Spshu (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Walt Disney Parks, Experiences and Consumer Products be merged into Walt Disney Parks and Resorts then move to Disney Parks, Experiences and Consumer Products. While the media reported that Parks, Experiences and Consumer Products is a new segment/unit, I found in the corporate records that Walt Disney Parks, Experiences and Consumer Products is a corporation... formerly known as Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Worldwide, Inc. Given that this is just a name change, the two articles should be merge to the parks and resorts article then renamed (for example Disney–ABC Television Group has gone through a few name changes as has Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, but kept to a single article). On the other hand has the original Walt Disney Parks and Resorts become too long that such a such break is needed (similar to Marvel Comics prior common names of Atlas Comics (1950s) and Timely Comics)? Spshu (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Support.78.16.56.1 (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Support.BBMatBlood (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Support.Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Support.Thunderbolt.wiki (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

20th Century Fox Park

https://www.msn.com/en-sg/money/topstories/3-theme-parks-that-genting-could-replace-20th-century-fox-world-with/ar-BBQ94bY

As of 2019 there were talks that Disney was going to put a 20th Century Fox Park in Malaysia. But Genting the company holding the contracts for 20th Century Fox and Disney sued both Fox and Disney in 2018 for contract violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:0:0:0:9915 (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Disney Parks, Experiences and Products

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Disney Parks, Experiences and Products's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Deadline":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Disney Parks, Experiences and Products

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Disney Parks, Experiences and Products's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "USAToday":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions

Some suggestions for the article, because people might assume that Disney parks are more popular than they actually are (attendance wise). Over 75 percent of Europe and British residents have never and will never go to a Disney park ever. Over 90 percent of people from these places have never and will never go to a Disney park ever: Asia, South America, Oceania. About 68 percent of Canadians have never and will never go to a Disney park ever. At least 40 something percent of Americans have never and will never go to a Disney park ever. Most Americans alive today who have been to a Disney park in the past, will go the rest of their lives without going to a Disney park ever again. The info above is more than just trivia ,it helps balance this article so it doens't look like a promotional piece for Disney. I would literally bet my life the vast majority of regular Wikipedia users have never and will never go to a Disney park ever (like 66+ percent).

Another thing that should be in the article is if there have been any studies that have been mentioned in newspapers or magazines that say if the land that all of the Disney parks and resorts around the world currently occupy will be suitable for revelopement in the distant future after all of the Disney parks and resorts on Earth are permantly closed within a century or within 175 years (obviously there will be no Disney parks or Disney resorts on Earth within 100 years or within 175 years) Such information would be helpful for people who read these articles ,as other articles on Wikipedia have such information in them. LattricaArnrl (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

All of that is original research in violation of WP:NOR unless you are able to provide citations to reliable sources per WP:V and WP:RS. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
"obviously there will be no Disney parks or Disney resorts on Earth within 100 years or within 175 years" Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future." We can not predict what will happen to the resorts within the next century or two. Dimadick (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

split

I just want 20th Century Fox Consumer Products to have its own page Butts2083938 (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

plz Butts2083938 (talk) 08:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
someone reverted everything from this page with deleting the splitting the TCFCP page and the Info about TCFCP Butts2083938 (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I brought back the info about TCFCP and the splitting thing so don’t delete it Butts2083938 (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The article you wish to create existed at one point, but it was deleted for failing Notability and changed to a redirect. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/20th Century Fox Consumer Products. Please do not continue adding unsourced information to this article, or it will be seen as disruptive. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disney_Experiences/Archive_1&oldid=1239107454"