Talk:Disneyland Park (Anaheim)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Disneyland Park (Anaheim) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
To-do list for Disneyland Park (Anaheim): edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    Disneyland Park (Anaheim) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
    Archive
    Archives
    1


    Contents

    [edit] The Article Name is Ridiculous

    Seriously. Why did it get changed back again? Why is Disneyland wrong? I'm serious. Nobody looking for the article is going to type "Disneyland Park (Anaheim)" in the search box. Just leave it Disneyland. Geez. EDIT: Oh, and by the way, have fun fixing all the articles that link to "Disneyland", since now it goes to a long disambiguation page. That is, if this article doesn't get fixed by then. --Lyght (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

    Maybe at least change it to "Disneyland Park" since someone made another un-discussed move "Disneyland Park (Paris)" to "Parc Disneyland." --blm07 10:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    I changed the Paris page back to the English title. "Disneyland" should redirect here. but there probably should be a disambiguous page called Disneyland (disambiguous) Bytebear (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    Strong Agree. Move the disambiguation to Disneyland (disambiguation). Redirect Disneyland to this page, and add a disambig link to the dab page at the top of this article. Or simply move "Disneyland Park (Anaheim)" back to Disneyland and then do the rest of the above. Wikipedia articles should, by policy, be named after the most commonly used reference. And 99% of the time, when people say "Disneyland" they sure aren't thinking about Paris (particularly in the English-speaking world). --Rehcsif (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    Done. I do think this article should stay the same. It is more accurate, and people looking for Disneyland should be ok redirecting here. I do think that the other ambiguous pages should have a header to direct them to the disambiguation page.Bytebear (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    "when people say "Disneyland" they sure aren't thinking about Paris (particularly in the English-speaking world)." - In North America you mean.. In Europe and UK, Disneyland Paris is thought as of Disneyland. Although I do agree that Disneyland Anaheim should be Disneyland simply because it was the original park and destination, and the first to use that name. SWatsi (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] toontown

    this edit says toontown is a fictional SF suburb, the prev states it is a LA suburb. Which? reference? 67.49.8.228 (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

    The movie was set in Los Angeles. Bytebear (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Proposal to add external link

    I'd like to propose adding this link to the "External Links" section: Disneyland Vacation Tips: http://www.DisneylandVacationTips.com

    It's a collection of tips for Disneyland visitors of all ages, organized by topic (i.e. FastPass Tips, Toddler Tips, Weather Tips).

    Yes, it's my site. But I hope that doesn't work against me. I created the site because most of the Disneyland sites I see are bulletin-board style and/or tough to navigate for the first-time Disneyland visitor. I spent tons of time researching, writing, and organizing what I consider to be the best of the best Disneyland visitor info. We all know Disneyland is a fantastic place and I want people to have as excellent a time as I always do!

    Thanks,

    Kmilano (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry, but I would say no. It is a conflict of interest and can be seen as spam and it violates policies of external links. Please review these issues. Bytebear (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    The site does seem a little heavy on the adsense, but other than that it seems to be a source of good information. However, the EL list in the article is already too long in my opinion... I'd be ok with adding this site, but only if one or more of the other sites were removed (e.g. we felt this site was more valuable in the article than one of the others. The fact that the owner brought up the site on a talk page doesn't bother me at all (in fact I suggested it to him) and shouldn't be used against him if the site would otherwise be considered valuable info for the article... --Rehcsif (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    Any thoughts on which external site the new one could replace? Kmilano (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    I would say "none". The EL sites that are currently listed are (a) the official Disney page; (b, c, d) respected sites covering various aspects of Disney park management and history that supports and/or goes into great detail about the hows & whys of what the parks are about; (e) a site about the park's coasters /my opinion shouldn't be here but whatever/; (f) travel wiki; (g,h) two sites that also don't seem to provide any supporting information to this article and should probably be removed as well. Adding a "travel tips" EL site here is not appropriate and does not match the WP:EL policy. We appreciate that you've brought it up for discussion before attempting to add it, but I can't see any scenario where it would successfully stay as an EL. You will be better served seeing if it could be added to the travel wiki or to DMOZ. SpikeJones (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Original D

    I see what you're saying and was ok with it but upon seeing another external site posted (originald.com) I'm reopening the discussion. Why is that website not asked to appeal to this page for a vote? Kmilano (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

    Thank you for bringing that link to our attention. It was supposed to have been removed with all the other entries that editor had inserted onto WP elsewhere last week. As another editor was cleaning up after that poster, I thought they had gotten all of them and hadn't bothered to followup. SpikeJones (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    The Original D site added nothing new to the articles. A couple of storylines (already covered in the article), hidden mickeys (usually removed from the article), and a video from YouTube (that was encoded by someone else) could be added directly to the article if they are important enough. Besides, if Wikipedia allows one fan site on each article, then what about the rest of the multitudes of sites out there? --blm07 18:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    If you find other questionable external links from Original D or someone else, please feel free to let me know and they will be addressed promptly. We try our best to keep things clean, but some get past us... :) Just because someone else violates policy doesn't open the door for others to do likewise, all that really ends up happening is they get into trouble. heh... Tiggerjay (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    For the record, here are a few highly notable sites that have used Original D as a source for their own site.

    71.116.179.175 (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

    However the titles you use are abit mis-leading as they are really BLOGS which are sponsored by the newspapers. Blogs are not considered reliable sources.Tiggerjay (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    Screamscape is a great site (I've reported news there of things that I knew couldn't be posted here myself), but it can't be used in WP directly as it is not just a blog but that it also fails WP:EL due to the fact that it doesn't cite its sources for rumor news that is reported there. I'll reiterate what was said before -- post your site at DMOZ or one of the other site aggregators; honestly, it will get much, much more exposure than it will get here. Remember, WP:NOT a link exchange. SpikeJones (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    This is really grasping at straws. The references to Original D at the pages linked above are trivial and non-notable; blog hyperlinks aren't an instant stamp of approval. Fundamentally, links to Original D add nothing of value to Wikipedia's articles. Furthermore, and this point bears emphasizing, the WHOIS record for originald.com says it first was registered on March 22, 2008—making the site less than two months old. It's absurd to suggest it's an invaluable resource with content unavailable anywhere else. It's an ordinary fan site with minimal, marginal content. Continuing to argue for its inclusion in Wikipedia articles is wasting people's time and it ignores previous advice that your views would be given more respect if you showed any interest in contributing to the encyclopedia. Instead, your only reason for editing Wikipedia appears to be promoting your website. —Whoville (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    Hey guys, my name is Ryan. I am the creator and owner of Original D. I just wanted it to be known that I have been a long time WP reader. I got a PM from a member today at my site saying that he is getting harassed here whenever he tries to add my site to the encyclopedia and gave me a link to this discussion page. I have filled him in that my goal is not to spam around on sites and the majority of what I have to offer can already be found on the WP articles. I believe things have been settled and you should not have any more issues regarding links to Original D. I decided to finally make an account on Wikipedia today because after building my site I think I have a lot to offer as far as the Disneyland related articles go. I'm actually rather excited to get invloved. On a side note, I also read around on all the different talk pages regarding this issue and somebody mention open directories. Thanks for that tip, I never thought of that before... :) -Dewdrinker19 (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    Just have an understanding of Wikipedia's policy on Conflicts of Interest when editing. Bytebear (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    No worries here. I understand how it works. The way I figure (and what I told the member of my site that kept posting the links) is that IF the site is ever important enough that it needs to be added here somebody will add it without us doing anything. haha. -Dewdrinker19 (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Management section needs citiations

    Management section needs citiations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.223.94 (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Some people are so rude on here

    Seriously, some of the people on this site think of themselves as the defined experts on everything, and have appointed themselves as the definitive editors of all things. The whole reason that Wikipedia exists at all is that it is open for contributions from everyone, and everyone can add their part. It is silly then how some have taken it upon themselves to define what can be a reasonable information on, especially on Disneyland. Sorry to the Dad of two kids who works at the garage or whatever it was, but unless you work for like Disney Archives you really don't have the right to define what Disney in a global encyclopedia site. Get a life people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdarryls1 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

    Jdarrls1, I'm not sure what edits you are referring to since I do not see any edits from your account to this article. However, many new editors confuse reverts as some sort of ownership but rather, we are making edits to ensure an article adhears to Wikipedia Policies. I hope that may explain some of what you may be seeing here. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Disneyland Helipad section

    I see that it's already been the subject of some dispute so I'm not going to touch it but the Disneyland Helipad information feels irrelevant and out of place. Is it true? Apparently so. Is it backed up with citations? Yes. Is it relevant to an article about the theme park? I don't think so. Based on the separate article about one incident, Los Angeles Airways Flight 417, the crash didn't occur at Disneyland, Disney had no involvement and the crash had no meaningful impact on the theme park, the Disney company or its park guests. The only link appears to be that Disneyland was the helicopter's destination. The impact of both crashes presumably was limited to the company that operated the passenger service, the families of the people involved and the physical sites where the helicopters crashed. By that reasoning, information about virtually every air disaster in history could be added to the articles on the departure and arrival airports, which would be absurd. The two crashes are a minor footnote in relation to the theme park and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Including it in the article should add to a greater understanding about Disneyland, which it doesn't do. Plus, it's wedged into the article in a way that makes no logical sense—listed among descriptions of park attractions that happen to involve transportation. Also consider that the person arguing for its inclusion is an aviation buff, so that may not reflect the most objective judgment on this issue. Other thoughts? —Whoville (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

    • I have to agree, mostly. The fact that Disneyland once had scheduled passenger helicopter service is notable. That's something you just don't see very often. However, the crash details probably don't belong there. Since there is a separate article about one of the crashes, that includes information about the second, there is no need to have a synopsis in the Disneyland article. I will remove and link accordingly. Rsduhamel (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It's notable enough that a brief mention is appropriate. I added some more information about the helipads (there were 2 locations) along with a reference which also contains some additional photos of the helicopters and of the helipads. The crashes aren't Disneyland specific but the fact that they are why the service was discontinued is relevant the Disneyland article.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I just performed some minor date fixes, however I'm not sure that there is a WP:RS citing the accidents as a cause for the discontinuance of service, it appears that it might have been a combination of factors including the lack of federal funding. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)