Talk:Walt Disney Parks and Resorts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disney Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Disney on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:DLRPlogo.jpg

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)