Talk:Prince Charming Regal Carrousel

Amusement Parks: Walt Disney Parks and Resorts Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Page Move

Can we get this page moved back, at the very least, to its (old) original title Cinderella's Golden Carousel (either with two R's or one)? The current title doesn't make any sense, and is inconsistent withthe opening paragraph. SpikeJones (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Page Merge?

Merging this page with the King Arthur Carrousel page should be considered in order to create one article based upon carousels in Disney Theme Parks. Jclavet (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Cinderella's Horse"

Someone at Disney goofed, then, because the people running the ride are telling this story! Is there a way to incorporate this into the article without making it sound like everybody's stupid?? FlaviaR (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps by adding "However, guests at the park are told this story by cast members operating the ride." to the current end of the urban legend category? Jclavet (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do not add stories that cast members tell to guests to WP. It is documented and published that it is not Cinderella's horse. SpikeJones (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the "urban legend" section already states the situation with a footnote. No need to expand this any further. SpikeJones (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An uncorroborated interview on an unreputable blog (i.e., not a respected major news source) hardly constitutes "documented and published". Disney's own people and official documentation refutes the story. I think this section should be removed until verified by a secondary source (a secondary source that simply isn't reprinting the original blog, which everyone seems to be doing right now, ah, the dangers of internet journalism!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.35.27 (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove this unless someone can produce a verifiable source that backs this up. Note that a reproduction on someone else's website or blog is NOT verifiable info, they are simply repeating the same story. There is a mountain of official documentation of this fact from Disney that clearly contradicts this assertion.70.91.35.27 (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)F[reply]

Wade Sampson's articles are correct and accurate, and he is a recognized Disney expert. The Cinderella article comes from an interview he did directly with the person who restored the ride. Please provide the "mountain of official documentation", as Wade's information certainly qualifies on all accounts. Besides, the new rewritten "official" storyline would be the perfect opportunity to state that "the prince put cinderella's horse on his jousting trainer"... but it doesn't. So that would be two official strikes against stating what you believe to be true. Thx. SpikeJones (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know Wade Sampson? Would it surprise to you know that there is no such person? I'm not sure where you are drawing the conclusion that his articles are correct and accurate, why, because his byline says so? The Disney Magic Kingdom Imagineering Field Guide (written BY Imagineers for goodness sake, I don't know how you can get any more official than that) cites the horse as hers. Don "Ducky" Williams, Disney's senior artist, did an official lithograph in 2001 with Cinderella on her horse on the carrousel. And you can get a certificate that you rode her horse if you are chosen as Princess of the Day. The person who restored the carousel is speculating at best, I will take the word of the Disney Imagineers (she is NOT an Imagineer) over hers any day of the week. 70.91.35.27 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)F[reply]

Any hope of getting anyone else to chime in here so this doesn't degenerate into a one on one disagreement? I'm not trying to start anything, really, it's just that this story cropped up out of nowhere and everyone is picking it up as an official debunking. Before a fact that has been published and told over and over again by Disney Imagineers and Cast Members is summarily dismissed because of one interview (which has yet to be corroborated by anybody), I think it's worth a discussion. Doesn't the inclusion of information in an encyclopedic format presume that the information is verifiable? Anyone can post anything in an online blog, that doesn't make it fact.70.91.35.27 (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)F[reply]

Yes, we do need more participants to chime in - thank you for verbalizing that. I'll assume from your statement above that either you do not believe that Wade Sampson writes historically factual researched information on Disney history. I suggest that instead of summarily dismissing his writings because they contradict what you believe that you find specific items in his writings that are incorrect. The person who restored the ride counters the "Cinderella's horse" belief; where is your debunking of her statement other than "that's not what the cast believes"? And if you're going to dismiss Wade's writings as mere blog posts, then we also dismiss what appears to be every Disney-related blog that refers to Cinderella's horse as well. (It's only fair) I do go back to the official Disney storyline for the Prince Charming Regal Carrousel that does not mention Cinderella's horse anywhere. You'd think that would be the time to mention it, right? SpikeJones (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And a side comment, as I have confirmed your statement about what the Imagineer's Guides (both original and updated versions) say regarding the horse -- it wouldn't be the first time that Imagineers were wrong and didn't know the full story behind an attraction, and then either destroying part of the old due to ignorance OR rewriting to meet what consumers want (ie adding Snow White or Captn Jack to their respective rides, simply because visitors kept asking why those characters weren't visible). SpikeJones (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, was just at Disney. Horse story confirmed by many Cast Members. It is mentioned in at least TWO OFFICIAL DISNEY guide books sold on property. So here's the scorecard:

1: IS HER HORSE:

Cited by Cast Members Cited in the Magic Kingdom Imagineering Field Guide (official Disney Publication) Cited in the Magic Kingdom Park Guide book (official Disney Publication)

2: NOT HER HORSE:

A ten year old second hand story from a Cast Member that cannot be verified

Why does #2 override #1? Her "logical" points can all be refuted, and are just one person's opinion in any event. I would say in terms of sources and verifiability that it being her horse is the proper story. Even if you assert that "sometimes they're wrong" you must concede that the Cast Member may be wrong too, and minimally, the section should be rewritten to tell the whole story.70.91.35.27 (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)F[reply]

Further: The Pal Mickey plush that was sold at the parks (that "spoke" as you visited the various attractions) said "Find Cinderella's Horse" on the box.

A first hand report from a Guest at the park: She was moved to the front of the line and before boarding they made an announcement that a princess will be riding on Cinderella's horse. They gave her a crown and a certificate. After the ride, her "court" ushered her off the ride while proclaiming "make way for the princess".

I think this is more than enough "proof" that the "Urban Legend" section is overstated and needs to be pulled, minimized, or be rewritten (which I will do if no one objects). 70.91.35.27 (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)F[reply]

First-hand accounts fail WP's reference guidelines and can't be used as a citable example. I have seen/heard cast members do all sorts of things on their own that all lend to spreading inaccuracies about the parks OR that support falsehoods and urban legends -- sometimes it is simply to put a smile on a child's face by making them think that they actually rode Cindy's horse when there is no such horse in the first place. I could go on with specific examples of where Imagineers change/alter/ignore original storylines for purposes of their own design to show that the left hand doesn't always know what the right is doing. You seem to not believe that an interview with the person responsible for the carrousel design is not an accurate representation of the truth. As such, there is nothing wrong with continuing to list this under "urban legend" as there is enough counter-information available to refute what you're trying to impose in the article. SpikeJones (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as an aside regarding your comment that dismisses what Wade Sampson says in his interview, as it appears that you are not familiar with his work. He's been quoted elsewhere in Wikipedia, and even has credits as a contributer to D23. Sampson deserves a bit more credit/respect than your referring to his writings in "an unreputable blog" or the assumption that his interview "cannot be verified". The Disney organization (and other reputable Disney-oriented websites) certainly has given it to him, why can't you? That said, I don't want this discussion to be siderailed into one about Mr Sampson, as he is not the topic at hand. Just wanted to put the source into perspective. SpikeJones (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" I have seen/heard cast members do all sorts of things on their own that all lend to spreading inaccuracies about the parks OR that support falsehoods and urban legends"...are you asserting that the CMs at the Carousel took it upon THEMSELVES to print their OWN certificates saying one rode Cindy's horse? And broke into a warehouse of Pal Mickey's and replaced them with their OWN boxes? I think this whole topic is really getting out of hand. Would you at least agree that this section should be rewritten to reflect both sides of the story? You maintain that every Imagineer and every Cast Member who says it is her horse is wrong despite the OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED EVIDENCE to the contrary (with no evidence other than your opinion and a second hand, non-verified story which I'm sure goes against WP policy on a number of fronts, may I make the suggestion that while the writings of Wade Sampson are well respected, perhaps the Cast Members memory was faulty or she was simply fabricating her own version of the truth? That can't be proved one way or another unless someone else steps in, that's what I mean by non-verified.). This section, written by you I presume, is very slanted to what you want to believe and as such paints a one-sided biased view. I think it's perfectly OK to say that a Cast Member who worked on the Carousel (but did not design it, you overstate that point) has a certain viewpoint, but hers shouldn't carry any more weight than anyone elses, and those other viewpoints should also be noted, particularly since they can be properly sourced (and far outnumber hers). I would also like to suggest we ask the question, is this even notable to be included at all? I think we've both proven that this is just a bunch of people offering up their opinion on a subject that frankly isn't that important. Urban legends belong on Snopes, not here. Is it that important that it needs to be included in what is meant to be an encyclopedia (i.e., something that is not meant to be a forum for opinion and rumor?)70.91.35.27 (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)F[reply]

I've rewritten this section, not to remove the Wade Sampson interview, but to simply present both sides with proper citations. I've tried to make it neutral so as not to convey a particular point of view, if you think it needs tweaking to improve the neutrality of it please do so. One could argue both sides but it's really up to the individual to draw their own conclusions (unless someone gets an answer from Bob Iger, Meg Crofton or Steve Jobs themselves!) :) In the meantime I think this covers the situation with a degree of completeness that a Wiki article should strive for, I hope you agree. 70.91.35.27 (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)F[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to even-balance the section. Hopefully my edits did not totally bork your effort. I agree that the entire discussion is of questionable inclusion, but we've both seen worse trivial additions than this, and at least we are providing appropriate sources to support both sides of the discussion. SpikeJones (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, that reads very well! I just tweaked it a little bit as the sources I cited (the books) weren't written by Cast Members but by Imagineers and non-Cast Member authors (I totally agree, and know, that Cast Members aren't always the most reliable source, just ask about the Bride's Ring at the Haunted Mansion and see the mixed bag of answers you'll get).69.142.65.250 (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)F[reply]

See, THAT's a perfect example of cast members making up their own story that's been spread around for no good reason whatsoever. It's a freakin' saw'd off post, people. Get over it. :) SpikeJones (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm still amazed at how many people look for it! Probably the same people that think that's Walt Disney on one of the singing busts inside the graveyard :) 18:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)F —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.65.250 (talk)

Purchased in 1967?

Article says Walt Disney bought this in 1967. He died in 1966. Creeeeepy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.177.19 (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Prince Charming Regal Carrousel. 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) 19:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]