Talk:Utilidor

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska 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.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles

Architecture

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles

Utilidor and common utility duct

First of all, this article seems to be a Frankenstein of descriptions for Disneyland's utilidor and Canada's utilidor. Are they referring to the same thing, or are they not similar enough to be considered the same? According to dictionary.com, utilidors are above ground, however the article claimed utilidors were below ground. So, utilidors are either all above, all below, or it could be either. There's also another article that's describing pretty much the same thing -- Common utility duct. However maybe this term is used more often in Asia than elsewhere. Maybe there are more synonyms. I can see how these conduits can be special for Canada as it needs to take its weather into the equation. —Tokek 12:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, talk about Frankenstein, someone has made a miserable hash of talk page redirects here. Anyway, I figure both the Canadian and the Disney version are distinct from other things. For the first, the term common utility duct is practically always used underground. For the second, as I understand the history, Disney built "utilidors" first as a way for staff to get around, out of sight of customers, and only secondly found them handy for wires and pipes. "Common utility ducts" are normally made too cramped for people to walk easily. These distinctions need some work to make them more clear in the articles, but merging or spinning off sections will not do the job unless the writing is made right, which is to say it's more a matter of improving the individual articles than of merging or splitting. Incidentally, the description of the Canadian version would be much improved by saying more precisely where it is used. Surely not in big cities. Jim.henderson 20:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "miserable hash of talk page redirects"? I made Talk:Common utility duct redirect to here, at least temporarily, because I didn't want discussions on the same merge proposal occurring on two separate pages. Which has happened before for other articles. —Tokek 05:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy or knight?

I changed the cowboy to a knight in regard to the character in the "modern legend" because yesterday I went to Traditions and the presented told us that Walt reportedly saw a knight walking through Frontierland. - A new Disney cast member

Someone reverted that change. The cowboy version has a cited source. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hearsay Nature

So being that Disney does not really publish any of this info, we can't cite it. I work at the Magic Kingdom often, and much of this info is totally wrong. I would like to fix it completely, but of course I am not able to being that I know...stuff. Any ideas of what we can cite to make this thing correct? Kurt (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]