Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Pecosdon

Need to correct a bio link on the page listing cast members. The link you show for "Don Payne" is incorrect. The correct link should be http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0714715/bio. My first visit to Wikipedia and I don't know how to make this edit myself. Please forgive any errors. Pecosdon (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HeadMouse

I think my member name says it all, LOL Disney guru at your service. if you need anything, information, videos, books, inside information direct from Cast Members, phone call from Mickey himself. Just let me know. HeadMouse 12:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)HeadMouse

[edit] Can I join?

Can I join? I love watching Disney Channel.--Peace, Cute 1 4 u 18:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes sure, because Disney is so big, I can't really handle the whole thing. That's why I'm planning to make branch out projects like Wikiproject Disney Channel. Anyway, if you've added your name to the proposed wikiprojects list, then your in! Julz

[edit] Launching of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Disney

I think you can start the project already since more than ten people signed on the proposal you made. -- ユージェイ 03:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a mistake on the page, Walt didn't attend the Chicago Art Institute, instead he attended the Chicago Accademy of Fine Arts under Ruth VanSickle Ford, that by the way was the oldes cartoon school in the US until the 1970's when it closed its doors. -- Hope you change it as is a becoming a fact due to so many publications making the mistake.

[edit] Attractions template

Here is the final version of the template: Template:Infobox Disney attraction. Please discuss on the talk page. --blm07 21:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been suggested that this be merged with other Disney attraction templates, specifically {{Disney_World_ride}}. Bytebear 00:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


After a looking around at various things, it appears people are supposed to have their template approved before being used. We have to come up with a template that everyone agrees on and submit it to Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed. That way, it will become the official infobox for this project, and if someone wanted to change it they have to discuss it here. --blm07 01:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I think thats a great idea. I linked to the yet to be created template {{Infobox_Disney_ride}} as a way to create a template that will not stomp on the already used templates, but if you think we should set up a sandbox first, that's alright with me. Bytebear 01:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you think it should be called Disney ride? This template is going to be used on more than rides (3D films, films, live shows) right? The name is probably a minor thing, but that is why I ended up using Disney attraction. --blm07 01:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
No I think it should be called "Infobox Disney attraction" but since that is in use, we can call it "Infobox Disney ride" until we have all the pages using the "attraction" box removed (er.. replaced with the new infobox), and then rename it. I also looked at the List of Templates page and it's pretty out of date. I say we just get started. Bytebear 01:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have created a new template for Disney attractions at {{Infobox_Disney_ride}}. Please review and tell me where it can be improved. Here are some issues:

  • acres should also have formula to do square meters.
  • columns of data is not lined up between boxes (minor issue)
  • instructions and standards for the values need to be defined
  • spacing when no icons are visible needs to be fixed
  • Additional values may be needed

Wow, I was skeptical at first, but I have to admit it is impressive. The ONLY thing I am worried about right now is how much room it takes up, it might not be possible to make it shorter. I really hate when templates take up most of the right side of the article, forcing pictures to the left and making the article annoying to read. For "Ride duration" you might want to change to "Ride duration (approx)" since they never have the same exact time twice. Also, you don't need underlines anywhere. --blm07 09:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I am less concerned about the length of the box for the attraction details, as I chose Big Thunder because it will likely be our worst case. Most attractions should be much shorter. I do worry about the Disneyland infobox (or other park) that lists every attraction in the park taking up the whole article. That infobox could be better served as a full width box similar to the categories box. I am also thinking of changing the style a bit. We may want to split up the template into two parts (attraction main details, and park specific details) with the latter template inside the former. Bytebear 17:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've mentioned the length of that Disneyland template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disneyland#Disneyland attractions template. --blm07 18:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just saw the one you added to Spaceship Earth, and it looks real nice. It looks like you cleaned it up and gave a background color to the left column text, it looks much better than it did yesterday. The sponsors work out great as well, having the years next to each is something I was wondering about. There are some odd facts in Spaceship Earth's attraction facts section such as Diameter, Circumference, Volume, Weight etc, how do you think those figures should be handled? --blm07 21:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There are many unusual facts about it, on the History Channel program about Disney World construction they mention that it had to be tested by engineers from one of the universities in California to avoid creating a wind tunnel effect under it. Also the drainage gutter system contained inside that drains rainwater into the lagoon, so people below will not get wet. One thing I wonder, but have not been there it the height of the wand that Mickey has with the added EPCOT sign. Spaceship Earth is 180ft. tall, under height requiring red light or strobe light as is the castle in the Magic Kingdom. But, the wand looks like it may be taller and have a stobe light at it's top, which would fit in EPCOT. Anyone know if there is? kidsheaven 23:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The height of the sphere and the height of the wand are both listed in the infobox. There are 8 generic labels that can be used for special information, like diameter, etc. I have replaced about 20 pages with the new infobox. Check them out. The list of pages is at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Infobox_Disney_ride. Bytebear 00:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I assume from the above that Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed#Disneyland Resort Paris and Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed#Disney themeparks are nolonger required and may be removed from teh infobox proposal page? David Ruben Talk 00:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Make a Portal?

Of all the subjects on Wikipedia, I'm surprised that Disney hasn't gotten its own portal, considering how many individual franchises have gained them. I assume that this will be a later project within the WikiProject, right? FigmentJedi 04:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It could, but it requires extreme dedication to keep it live and current. bibliomaniac15 05:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donald

The people over at Donald Duck's page and I have been have a little bit of banter over a Kingdom Hearts Section. I approve of it. They Don't. I point to the other major characters having KH sections while minor Characters get a sentence or two explaining what they did. Donald, under the way the have it, is getting the treatment of a minor character. They claim it is not relevant and should stay within the KH area. I respond that we have no place for it their. Please help us reach an agreement we will all be happy with. Lego3400: The Sage of Time 03:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, there is way too much KH information in nearly every Disney article. A brief mention at best is appropriate. Donald, however, is one of the main characters in the series; if any Disney topic deserves a large Kingdom Hearts section, it's him (plus Mickey Mouse, Goofy, and Maleficent). Powers T 03:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disney poster fair use

Someone tagged one of the poster images that I upload with the no fair use rationale template. He told me that all the posters in Category:Disney Theme Park posters should have a rationale. The link he gave did not help me, and I don't know what would be the best for this situation. This may become a problem in the future. --blm07 00:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline should explain what is needed. Assuming each poster appears in (and, generally, only in) the article for the poster's featured attraction (for example, Image:Adventure Thru Inner Space Poster.png on the article Adventure Through Inner Space), the fair use rationale should look something like this:
Disney theme park poster for _____
Fair use rationale: This image is of the official theme park attraction poster for the Disney attraction ____. It is used to identify and illustrate the attraction in the article _____. It is low resolution, and no free equivalent can be created, as it is an official poster.
Something like that. Powers T 02:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the fair use statement to many of the posters. It seems the very template the guy is using to tag these posters with the no fair use rationale is supposed to notify users of each infraction, and I haven't seen a single warning on user talk pages. --blm07 03:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the poster for Carousel of Progress has been deleted by OrphanBot. It seems that the task has some added urgency at this point. I will probably upload a different photo as a stopgap, but it won't be as appropriate. Karen | Talk | contribs 13:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look I see that none of my images will serve even as a temporary measure. Sorry. Karen | Talk | contribs 13:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, curiouser and curiouser. Image:Carousel of Progress Poster.jpg has not been deleted, except frm the article. The claim is that it has no source information, but the image page has the right source listed and a detailed fair use rationale. I don't see how it can possibly be made any plainer. Karen | Talk | contribs 13:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't actually see any source information. Where did you get the image? Did you scan it in from a paper copy? Powers T 02:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it fair to say that the source is the attraction poster? I didn't upload this (or any of these), but surely that's strongly implied in the verbiage. It seems to me that these small, low-res versions of the posters either are or are not legitimate fair use across the board for this one specific purpose (illustrating the relevant attraction), regardless of whether they were scanned from a physical poster or found on the Disney site or wherever. They are copyrighted Disney images, regardless. Karen | Talk | contribs 09:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but that's not the point. Our image use guidelines still require a source to be recorded. This is for credit purposes; it may not matter for fair use purposes who scanned in the images, but as a free encyclopedia, we try to give credit where credit is due. "The Attraction Poster" is not a specific-enough source; since these are electronic images, someone had to do something to capture the image electronically, probably via scanner. Powers T 16:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the uploader was notified, I'm guessing they found it on a website and uploaded it here. I agree, in this case it probably doesn't matter where it came from since it was probably copied a million times and originally from an official Disney source. --blm07 10:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] catégories

I have done a extensive reorganisation of the wide "generic" Category:Disney parks and attractions. --Gdgourou 10:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see additional categories for attraction types. Specifically Omnimover attractions, Interactive Theater, etc. Bytebear 20:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes it's a good idea, perhaps it could be done with the use of the info ride box ?--Gdgourou 07:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disney TV Help?

I'm slowly meandering through a lot of Disney Channel shows and trying to remove trivia etc. Is there a child project that works for that, or can issues be addressed here? I'm looking for a little help on the Tanya Baxter article. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 21:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Park listings

So it seems the many pages (such as List of current Magic Kingdom attractions, List of past Magic Kingdom attractions, List of current Epcot attractions) are somewhat of a mess. Let's agree on putting all current attractions, previous attractions and entertainment on either one page or the land's page (such as Fantasyland or Future World). I've created a prototype of the one page idea here: User:Blm07/Epcot example --blm07 18:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned on the main project page, this would include the slightly newer page List of Disney attractions, and perhaps encompass Closed rides and attractions as well.SpikeJones 18:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that the List of Disney attractions can be a comprehensive list. It is color coded to define current, past and future attractions, as well as gives a nice chart format for each park. It does need clean up and is incomplete, but with a few hands, adding to it, we can make it a stellar article. We can discuss the details of layout and information on its talk page. Bytebear 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of a huge list, but I think past attractions / entertainment should be included on the land's page as well. Then again, Disneyland's list is huge, so a page for each park should be fine as well. --blm07 00:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I hold no opposition to having separate pages for each park. The main list serves the purpose of getting an overview of everything Disney has done. Others can focus on each park as needed. It just depends on the purpose for the list(s). Ideally you can use the attraction page itself as a template to generate the list from. A good example of such a concept can be found at List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The format is basically this: {{ Talk:attraction_page/data | format=template_style }} Using this format, you can reuse the data from each attraction in many lists, and even the infobox on the attraction page, and when data changes or is added, the lists get updated as well. It's a fairly slick solution. Bytebear 01:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Using more templates could be a good idea, do you think you can come up with a small example of how it would work and look? Also, what should the page be called? I was thinking "(Park) attractions and entertainment history" --blm07 01:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and move my Epcot example to Epcot attraction and entertainment history if there are no objections, and if you want to try the template thing, then go ahead. I'll help populate the list, but I don't know how to set it up. --blm07 19:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

now exist --blm07 21:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we mark this task as done? Have we confirmed that the old pages have been deleted and that we have a master list of what the attraction articles are supposed to be (and can that list be posted, please?)? SpikeJones (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Ride Quiz

Everybody, I've just created a Disney Ride Quiz, which is located here. Hope you like it! 01kkk 01:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

While I'm sure you put some work into your quiz, please remember that WP is not to be used as your personal web host. Please see WP:NOT for details. SpikeJones 04:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Wikiproject Little Einsteins

Template:Wikiproject Little Einsteins has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 00:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split Port Orleans Resort pages?

(myunknownside000) I think that the Port Orleans Page should be split into 2 pages for the simple reason that they are 2 different resorts. Myunknownside000 17:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No. They were two different pages/resorts, but when the resorts merged into one Port Orleans entity, the associated pages were merged as well. For an example that should probably be merged into the main article anyway, see Disney's Dixie Landings Resort SpikeJones 19:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page

The Walt Disney Company page is really a very dissapointing article at the moment, considering its importance. There are too many lists and the informations seems in parts sporadic and incomprehensive. It will need a lot of work, and really must be the top priority of this WikiProject at the moment S Newton 15:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template for Disney World Resort

Hi all, I created a template for the Disney World Resort based on Template:DLR. I have it on a temporary page here and would like to get some feedback before I move it to its own page and use it as a template. I left this message at Wikiproject Disney World, but it seems that project hasn't seen much activity lately so I just wanted to try here. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Phydend 01:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

DWR: I think it would be fine on each park's page, but I'm opposed to having it in each attraction's article. The new infobox design already takes up much of the right side, see Jim Henson's Muppet*Vision 3D, the infoboxes already take up nearly the entire right side. BTW it's Walt Disney World Resort, your template goes through a redirect when you click the top link. MGM: The template would probably be fine at the bottom of the page, if you look on the MuppetVision article, it would probably look fine in between the Muppet and DCA templates. --blm07 19:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I definitely don't want the DWR template on all attraction articles. Only on the Walt Disney World Resort page and others like it, kinda like the pages that the Disneyland Resort Template are on (here). I'm going to work on the MGM template some more before adding it to the list of templates to use. Thanks for the feedback (I fixed the link so it doesn't redirect anymore also). Phydend 00:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Color Schemes for the Parks

It was just brought to my attention that there should be a uniform color scheme for each of the resorts and their pages. For example, Template:DLR is blue as is the ride template Template:Disneyland2 (they are actually different shades, but that can be fixed), however the infobox at the top of the Disneyland and Disney's California Adventure pages are both yellow, as is Template:DCA for California Adventure rides. When I made Template:DWR I made it green rather arbitrarily, but because it was green the infoboxes for the pages of the Walt Disney World Resort were all changed to green. The same is true for Disneyland Paris resort, as Template:DLRP is purple, so their infoboxes are purple. I think there needs to be a consensus. Should all 5 resorts have different color schemes to set them apart? And if so should the attraction templates have the same color schemes as the resorts? Also, how should the attraction infoboxes work, they are all light blue now, should they stay that way or be changed to the color of the resort where they reside (and if that then what about attractions at multiple resorts)? Just wondering everyone's opinion. In my opinion, the pages will look better if they are all uniform, but we'll have to decide. (Sorry for the long message) Phydend 16:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think uniformity would be nice, and it would make navigation clearer. I also like the idea of implementing the colors into the attraction infoboxes, although I have no idea if that could technically work. SergioGeorgini 20:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The infoboxes can match. There is an effort to replace the old infobox: Attractions using the infobox Template:Infobox_Disney_attraction need to be converted to using the Template:Infobox_Disney_ride. see the list of attractions using the old template. I believe the idea on the blue was to match the Dreams promotion, and the yellow was probably a left over from the 50th celebration. Bytebear 23:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

I hear there's been talk of endorsement by Wikiprojects for support. Should we start some sort of endorsement system? bibliomaniac15 00:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Fantasmic!

Hi, what is the opinion here about this template? The show does not seem enough to warrant this template on every article about characters who appear in the show. I was thinking of putting it up on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion since it actually only should be in one article and you don't need a template for that. Garion96 (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Song of the South

Someone should go about working on the Song of the South article and improving it to FA status. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.16.129 (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Dedication section at the top of park pages

I made a comment about the confusing practice of giving such a prominent spot to the dedication of a park in it's article. Most of the park articles have a quote from the dedication ceremony directly after the lead paragraph, making the article look like a bit of Disney propaganda. While what Walt Disney said about Disneyland is interesting and relevant, it still could find a better spot further on down the article. Anyway, you can head over to Talk:Disney's California Adventure#Dedication section for discussion. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 06:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I need someone to have their opinion right here.

Resolved.

Nobody seems to care about DuckTales. At least very few. But I don't think it's good idea to have a language section on DuckTales article. 13 days is more than reasonable waiting time. So I thought I should bring this to attention to Disney fans. Please disscuss this on the talk page. NOTE: I'm not a member on this project, and I won't come back to this disscusion page to responde, instead I will responde on the right talk-page. If this isn't the right way to bring the discussion to attention, please correct me through my talkpage, thank you. TheBlazikenMaster 21:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom Hearts development

Hello, myself and some other editors have been working on getting the Kingdom Hearts video game article to Featured Article status. For those of you who may not know, Kingdom Hearts was a collaborative effort between Disney and Square Enix. Unfortunately, we've hit a bit of a road block with the "Development" section. Does anybody with this project know of any resources to help us find information regarding the development of the game? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. (Guyinblack25 16:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Attraction technical details

While reviewing the content of many (but not all) attractions, they appear to have a significant amount of technical details, specifications, etc., about them. This really detracts from the articles and appears to be almost WP:Trivia in nature. I believe we need some input on this area and see what options are available to clean this up. One idea would be to make an infobox for this portion of the article. And in either case, we need to significantly reduce the information presented in each article. An external link to another website with the specific details would probably be more appropriate for the fine details. Tiggerjay 06:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking abou the details in the infobox, or in the article itself? Bytebear 07:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I was not clear... I am talking about the article itself... And suggest that we may want to make some form of an infobox to hold such details. :) Tiggerjay 03:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That is an excllent idea. and it was why the info box was expanded to hold such details. There are many pages that have a "Ride Specifications" section that should be moved to the in fo box. This will make the articles more clear and the info boxes more useful. I would say, add it to the task list. Bytebear 03:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what you are asking is already done here Template:Infobox Disney ride, it isn't used on all articles yet. I still think the infobox should only have basic info though. --blm07 11:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the standard infobox. and it should be used on every article about an attraction, show or ride. It should be noted that although it has a lot of extra info, you don't have to use every single entry. Bytebear 04:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that looks like that may be the ticket :) Let me look into it closer, and then I'll probably start integrating it into the attractions. As a result, I bet that I'll probably make some tweeks to the Infobox -- smartly however... Tiggerjay 19:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zack & Cody

Avi charizard 14:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Someone keeps taking of the task of having aseparate for Zack and cody eoisodes. PLZ STOP. and have a separate page for every epiosdeAvi charizard 14:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This is currently a disputed item in the talk pages for Zack and Cody. This needs to be resolved before projected. Tiggerjay 04:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Stidwill

In the page on the Imagination! Pavilion, it says that the name was changed from Journey Into Imagination Pavilion in the mid-90s. I think this is not correct - I visited the park in 1993, 1995, 1997, and July 1999 and the pavilion was still called "Journey Into Imagination". Therefore, I'm going to assume the new name was initiated at the end of 1999 when the new ride opened.

[edit] Tia Dalma

since Pirates is under this project...I'm looking for help re-writing the lead to Tia Dalma to not reveal the spoilers (because I don't feel spoilers in the lead are needed, not when someone could be looking her up for info from the first or second film and suddenly have the third spoiled) but not be "teasing" (as per WP:LEAD). If someone wants to take 5 minutes to drop by and give the last sentence a re-write, that'd be appreciated. Kuronue 19:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode article review notice

The individual episode articles for Hannah Montana are now being reviewed according to episode notability guidelines. Please contribute to the discussion on Talk:List of Hannah Montana episodes#2nd episode article review. Thanks. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're invited to join a discussion on Scrooge McDuck's talk page.

I made some edits and put Scrooge in another category, but someone else reverted my edits, because he/she disagrees. Well, I want more people to join the discussion, whether or not Scrooge is American, click here to join it. The reason why I'm inviting members of this WikiProject is because the discussion isn't really working out like it is now. TheBlazikenMaster 14:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Click here to join the discussion. TheBlazikenMaster 14:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Disney video game stubs

Thought you might be interested, there is now Category:Disney video game stubs. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 09:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The articles on the DuckTales episodes need some serious clean up.

Main discussion: DuckTales#The episodes (If you're watching this page, please read.)

If you have any DVDs of DuckTales, or recorded episodes, or a channel that shows DuckTales(it doesn't have to be in English, people not from an English-speaking country are more than welcome to help.) please use these sources to help you with the cleanup, and try to clean up. TheBlazikenMaster 09:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal

I was feeling lazy today so decided to create a Disney Portal for you all to enjoy. I have arbitrarily chosen a "Selected Article" and "Selected Image" as well as points for "Did you Know", so these can naturally be updated/voted on as time goes on!

If anyone has any suggestions as to things to add, articles to add in place of other links etc. etc. then I'd love to hear them!

Here's to another sucessful Wikiportal! Hydrostatics 18:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alice Comedies, Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, and the Laugh-O-Grams

I was surprised to find this not even a part of Wikiproject Disney. The page needs to be totally revamped with the recent release of 6 shorts on the Walt Disney treasures, and information on how many shorts are still in existence. Clean-up and extension is needed. Casey14 17:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Great catch Casey. Yes, this is something which should be included in the project. Tiggerjay 22:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've also added Oswald the Lucky Rabbit and the Laugh-O-Gram Studio Page to Wikiproject Disney. These, like Alice are historically important. Also, Oswald will be coming to DVD this December in the newest wave of Disney Treasures. Casey14 22:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Prince and the Pauper

It seems as this Disney featurette dosn't even have a page. Casey14 23:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who Created Mickey?

There seems to be an effort in the Ub Iwerks article to claim that Iwerks was the sole creator of Mickey Mouse, based on a single biography as a reference. My impression from other sources is that Mickey's origins are more complex than that. Could someone else take a look? I'm not sure I can find my Disney biographies right now, and it would be better to have more eyes on this to get sufficient sourcing and NPOV. Thanks! -- Karen | Talk | contribs 19:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

www.toonopedia.com is always a good resource on cartoon character history, and the guy who runs it used to write disney comics. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 20:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem at the High School Musical 2 and related articles

Just wanted to bring this to the attention of the WikiProject Disney community.

There seems to have been some trouble over the last few months claiming (mostly from IP addresses) that there will be a new character named Emma Bolton (presumably Troy Bolton's sister) who is supposed to be a love interest for Ryan Evans. Variants on this thing included the name "Tallulah" (on earlier edits), and claiming the character would be played either by Brittany Snow or Amanda Bynes.

If there was any truth to these edits, I'm pretty sure Disney would be promoteing the heck out of it (especially as close to the premiere as it is now). WAVY 10 17:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Going To Disneyland Sunday, Any Picture Requests?

Hey guys I'm an AP holder that lives 15 minutes from Disneyland. I'm heading to Disneyland Park this Sunday (8/12) for the day just to take photos all over the park. Leave me a list here of photos you would like taken and I'll print the list before I go. I see a lot of the attraction info boxes don't have photos. Jonnyboyca 11:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to see the logo of the attractions and shops (don't forget the shops) in context of their locations. In other words, take some pictures of the buildings or entrances and not just a close up of the logo. That is what I would like to see more of in Wikipedia. Thanks! Bytebear 17:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion: Hard ticket event

Resolved.

Hard ticket event (via WP:PROD on 2007-09-23) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aerial photos?

Hello, I have been active lately in contacting photographers on flickr to see if they will re-license some of their encyclopedic photos under the creative commons license. Several of them have been kind enough to do so. I am currently in touch with a gentleman who lives in central Florida who has taken some very nice aerial photos. He has asked if there are any specific photos we need in the central Florida area.

I told him that I thought an aerial photo of Walt Disney World Resort would be very nice. He explained that there is a no-fly zone around the resort, but that he has been able to get permission to over-fly it in the past and that he may be able to do so again. If he can do so, is there any particular property we would like photographed?

He is open to other suggestions in the Central Florida area also. No guarantees, of course. Please let me know if I should ask him about anything in particular. Thanks, Johntex\talk 17:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character articles

Hi everyone. I was wondering if anyone would like to discuss guidelines regarding articles about Disney characters? That's what I'm focusing now. Most of the character articles are unsourced, and are not very well organized. That, and some of the subjects actually border on not being notable enough to have their own separate articles. Can we come up with specific guidelines for the character articles? I have some ideas for guidelines, but I would like to know if anyone else wishes to discuss this matter first before I post anything. Additionally, I was actually thinking that perhaps there should be a task force devoted to character articles since there are so many of them, but I'm not too sure how to go about it. --SilentAria talk 06:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in this as well. I've browsed a few of these articles and wouldn't mind helping in the cleanup. Some guidelines would be helpful. Arrjay74 (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image of Jafar is about to be removed.

See the talk page for more him right here for more info.

If you can please keep the discussion ON Jafar's page, I'm not a member of this project and I don't wanna get back to this page every so often. TheBlazikenMaster 17:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I can't believe you guys

I asked you nicely to do something, but you did nothing. And now the image is gone. -- TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for deletion: Arbutus, Chaos, Eden

Resolved.

Also appering in the same AFD nomination ...

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for deletion: Episodes of the Alladin television series

Resolved.

Garden of Evil (Aladdin) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garden of Evil (Aladdin) (2007-11-10 – 2007-11-16) Delete all

This is one episode nominated for deletion.

In the same AFD nomination are 9 additional episodes.

  • The Vapor Chase (Aladdin TV Series‎)
  • Never Say Nefir (Aladdin TV Series)
  • Do the Rat Thing (Aladdin TV Series)
  • Much Abu About Something (Aladdin TV Series)
  • My Fair Aladdin (Aladdin TV Series)
  • Getting the Bugs Out (Aladdin TV Series)
  • Bad Mood Rising (Aladdin TV Series)
  • Air Feather Friends (Aladdin TV Series)
  • To Cure a Thief (Aladdin TV Series)
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disney Barnstar

Is there a Disney Barnstar? Seems like a normal Barnstar with two black circles behind the top half of the star would work.--Bedford (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • :-) cute notion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Parentage

I think it would not be a bad idea to list among the parents of this WikiProject the WikiProject Tourism. Thanks for considering this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article for deletion: Phantom Manor

Phantom Manor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phantom Manor (2007-12-21 –)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion: Le Pelt

Le Pelt (via WP:PROD on 2007-12-21)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion: Rolly (Dalmatian)

Rolly (Dalmatian) (via WP:PROD on 2007-12-21)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion: Spot (chicken)

Spot (chicken) (via WP:PROD on 2007-12-21)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion: Two-Tone

Two-Tone (via WP:PROD on 2007-12-21)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pixar

A WikiProject Pixar is trying to get started would this and that be connected.--Baitt (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weekend Afternoon Lineup

I have been informed that Hannah Montana now comes on after Cory in the House due to the Phineas & Ferb debut on February 1st. During the Phil in the Future credits, the program bar pops up on the screen & suppose to say "Next Cory in the House & Later Hannah Montana" but it didnt happen yet but it will happen etiher sometime this month or early part of next month.12.127.178.158 (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Can someone create a barnstar please. I have no idea how to.--BAITT (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "orlando" vs "orlando area"

Resolved.

Please join in the discussion over at Talk:Disney's_Hollywood_Studios#Orlando_attractions_vs_Florida_attractions regarding some recent changes of the various "in Orlando" categories to "in Greater Orlando" categories if you have an opinion or knowledge about the previous use of the original categories and whether the changes are for the better. Thanks! SpikeJones (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See Walt Disney World Resort for additional talk items. SpikeJones (talk) 13:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] all the FILM lists

On the to-do list is a request to "Clean up/consolidate/standardize/merge/fix all the associated Disney film lists (List of Disney animated shorts, List of Disney featurettes, List of Disney feature films, List of Disney live-action films, List of Disney direct-to-video films, List of Disney theatrical animated features, etc etc. Tons of duplication, and fails WP:NOT (a collection of lists)." I'll start with the obvious question: is there a need to have these three as separate lists, when they can be indicated as such on the same page: List of Disney feature films, List of Disney live-action films, List of Disney theatrical animated features? The one in the middle is the most obvious duplicate of the former, and all the items on the latter are indicated as such on the former. So why is there a need to have all three? Granted, the single page indicating those films in the official canon has some merit, but there may be other ways to do that as well. Comments appreciated, as I'm going to start chopping and moving things and would hate to do it on my own. SpikeJones (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger

The Wikipedia:WikiProject High School Musical has been tagged as inactive, and has very few articles. I propose that the project be merged into this one. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Concur (representing 50% of the current WP:HSM membership... Stifle (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Then, why hasn't it been merged yet? They're really floundering, while this project is thriving. How do we merge them?--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that project's banner deals with only a very few articles, I've turned it into a redirect to the main Disney project banner. However, if wanted, I could add task force parameters for this group to the Disney banner. I just question the necessity for only 14 or so articles. John Carter (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quack Pack

Resolved.

Recently some unregistered user added info that new episodes of Quack Pack are coming. That's why I'm bringing this here, I know such statement needs a citation. How about one of you true Disney fans can help out and add the needed citations? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, four days with no checking in. Seriously, how deserted is this project? Ah well, I guess I have to look up sources by myself. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I for one know nothing about Quack Pack, so I'm checking in to say that I can't help. Haha --blm07 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
A source has been added. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Disneyland Park" vs "Disneyland Park (Anaheim)"

so... anyone know why the Disneyland article needed to have the "Anaheim" clarification? Me thinks someone did that on their own without checking for consensus first. SpikeJones (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it was moved, moved back and moved again without any notice that I could see. Maybe it is the proper title, but a move that big should have been agreed upon first. --blm07 01:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
So... do we need an administrator to see if it should be moved back? (If it is to be moved back, there will need to have some admin work on it.) SpikeJones (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Magic Kingdom" vs "Magic Kingdom Park"

there was a recent edit on the Walt Disney Company page changing the text of "Magic Kingdom" to "Magic Kingdom Park", stating that "MKP" was the official reference from Disney. I see that on the Disney website, they do refer to the park as MKP, but not necessarily all the time. At the resort itself, they only refer to MK as MK on signage, etc. A quick scan through WP shows that there is inconsistent use, and MKP currently redirects back to the MK article itself. My recommendation for a policy on this is that the only place we need to refer to MKP as MKP is on the MK page itself, that we keep the MK page named as it currently is, and that we remove (make consistent) all references of MKP in various article text to be just MK. Comments, thoughts? SpikeJones (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Magic Kingdom Park is strictly for trademark protection, so that "Magic Kingdom" is modifying a noun. The park's guidemap says only Magic Kingdom, as does the large sign above the toll booths. Changing every Wikipedia reference to read Magic Kingdom Park is unnecessary hair-splitting unsupported by consistent usage at the resort itself. WP:UCN says Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. As in Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton. —Whoville (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bambi - confusion

Well, maybe this is the place to bring this up. Go to myuser page and you will see a comment about Bambi and Bambi II . I am not competent to deal with working on this, the confusion and interdigitation of the two, but this seems like the place to mention it. --Dumarest (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disney attraction: standard formatting/details

I just realized that many of the Disney related attractions pages have several different format; or "templates" with regards to how information is presented -- infoboxes, images, details, description, even down to the opening sentence, where some list the parks the attraction is at, while others don't. Perhaps we can look around at one of the existing attractions and make that the "standard" to which all other attractions should attempt to mimic. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll want to start with Template:Infobox_Disney_ride or ask those folks their opinion. It's a very good place to start. SpikeJones (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, however I was looking for discussion on consistancy beyond the existing wiki-templates (which still need to be implemented everywhere), but more about the article in general. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Past / Present DLR Attractions Pages Formatting

I love the idea of these lists. The thing that has been bugging me is there is no standard to how the format should be. The Disneyland Park version has a simple list while the California Adventure section has a bullet system. Which do you guys think it should be? I'm leaning towards the bullet but with having the attraction name in bold. -Dewdrinker19 (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attraction naming standards

HISTORICAL DISCUSSION MOVED FROM THE TSMM PAGE, used for reference only

At this point, I think it's inevitable that editors will continue to change-and-revert references to the attraction's name so in the spirit of WP:BOLD I've moved the article to Toy Story Midway Mania! and adjusted redirects at Toy Story Mania and Toy Story Mania! to point to its new location. The article explains that Disney is actively referring to the attraction by two slightly different names, while also noting accurately that the company has not explained the reason for the variations in any reliable source. I think that information should remain in the article until the "alternate" name goes away, if that ever happens. It's inaccurate to declare only one name "official" when the evidence is clear that both names are in active use by Disney. No one is required to "take sides" and choose the name he or she feels is more official than the other. Based on the large marquees at both attractions and the accumulation of supporting evidence like other park signs and guidemaps (some examples are here), I think it's reasonable to title the article according to the in-park references. With the existing redirects, no one will have trouble finding the article by either name. —Whoville (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed since this appears to be the name of the attraction itself, and the article is about the attraction - it makes sense. And so long as Disney refers to it as both, then both names should still be in the article. However, it probably may be notable enough to keep it in there after it has been resolved, as a point of historical fact. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed ... the primary name is "Toy Story Midway Mania!" with "Toy Story Mania!" apparently being an accepted abbreviation. Much as Expedition Everest has the full name of "Expedition Everest: Legend of the Forbidden Mountain." --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I don't feel like there was that much reason to move the article, as the old article name is/was a valid usage, and the full name was handled appropriately in the article text. Most people refer to the teacups as the teacups, not as the Mad Tea Party (or any of the other names in use at the other parks for the same ride). There has been precedent for having an article named something other than what the official in-park ride name has been, and I didn't see it as being that big of a deal that the article was using the marketing/promotional name as the title. SpikeJones (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that the teacups should be renamed, as the Disneyland website clearly says "Mad Tea Party." That said, the name change here makes sense because the images showing the actual attraction clearly say "Toy Story Midway Mania". Bytebear (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, unless I'm confused here, the Disney version is Mad Tea Party while there is a separate article for teacups which is for the type of ride, used elsewhere. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: McDoobAU93's comment above summarizes my reason for moving the article. I think it's reasonable to title the article according to the name used at the physical attraction site—the name above the door, in other words—as opposed to an abbreviated version apparently used for marketing and advertising purposes. Once it became clear that the longer name is used elsewhere in the parks on directional signs and guidemaps, it felt appropriate to use that as the article's primary name. Plus, my original comment touches on the fact that I also moved it out of a defeatist acceptance that there will continue to be an ongoing tug of war over the name throughout Wikipedia as seen by numerous change-and-revert cycles from Toy Story Mania! to Toy Story Midway Mania! and around and around again on multiple articles. Frankly, this is all a lot of hair-splitting. There are redirects for every variation of the name so no one will have any difficulty locating the article and the current text explains that both names are valid. It's disappointing that so much time and effort is being wasted on haggling over the name, trying to prove one version is more official than the other, instead of improving the article itself and expanding its content now that there are numerous reliable sources with plenty of details. —Whoville (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Redirects also appropriately handle those instances where people will search on any of the variations, including with and without the exclamation point. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: if this is going to be the standard (using the in-park attraction name vs the name used elsewhere yet still considered official), then we need to be consistent with that on all park rides. The only exception will be identifying which official name is to be used when more than one in-park name is in use (haunted mansion/phantom manor, mad tea party/mad hatter tea party/etc, expedtion everest forbidden mountain/expedition everest). If we're going to say that this is the exception, then all above reasoning is thrown out the window and there was no real reason to change the name. If this is the standard, then let's fix all the other articles to bring them in line. SpikeJones (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Excellent point, I love consistency! Let's move this talk over to the Disney project page so that others can chime in since this would effect all disney park articles - I'm not "set" in the naming scheme used here, but it does seem to my limited view to be the best way - but you do bring up good points, but this discussion would certainly be outside the scope of this one attraction's talk page. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

DISAGREE - Let's look at the Disneyland Resort, where "Toy Story Mania!" is being used in all advertising, including Billboards and TV outside the parks, and even inside the parks, they use the "Toy Story Mania!" logo in the resort, at the Tram Loading area, Downtown Disney, and signage next to the Ticket Booths. But the signage on the attraction, and on the Park Maps says "Toy Story Midway Mania!". If the park "officials", and that being Bob Iger and the rest of the main Corporate group uses "Toy Story Mania!", including on ALL Media events, including opening ceremonies and Press Releases, I don't see why someone can say that "Toy Story Midway Mania!" takes precedence over "Toy Story Mania!". I think the best wording is...

Toy Story Mania! (also known as Toy Story Midway Mania!")

Since the Park OFFICIAL spokespeople use the "Toy Story Mania!" name. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.181.42 (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

SpikeJones (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A discussion was started at Talk:Toy_Story_Midway_Mania!#Article_move about moving and/or renaming Toy Story Midway Mania! due to the different names which have been used, marketed, etc for this new attraction. The question was raised how should articles be named/created/moved inside of Wikipedia. Should they be based on the names according to the park maps, or by the marketed name (sometimes the same), or by the commonly referred to name (i.e. a truncated version). Since this affects at least all Disney related articles, I suggested the discussion be moved here instead of inside a specific articles talk page. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Using Mad Tea Party as an example, this attraction has four different names in five different parks. In this case, the consensus has been to go with the attraction name that opened first. For The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror, there is a section specifically for Hotel Hightower, a slightly different ride yet not enough of a difference to make an entirely new article (so the article is named after the ride that opened first... including the "the" in the name). Pooh's Honey Hunt in TDL is different enough from the US Pooh ride to warrant its own article. Those who have been around can recall the controversy over punctuation used for Rock-n-Roller Coaster's article, basing the result on in-park signage. Soarin' at Epcot is folded under the Soarin' Over California article, as the California version came first. Hence the problem with TSMM in that they were developed and opened (more or less) at the same time. For sake of consistency for attractions that appear in multiple parks with different names, it looks like the long in-park names have been the standard used, regardless of what people outside the berm use to refer to the attraction. (who calls the teacups the "mad tea party" in real life? almost nobody.) And then there is the submarine article(s) which are a completely different animal. But at least here are some talking points to get started... SpikeJones (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's look at the Disneyland Resort, where "Toy Story Mania!" is being used in all advertising, including Billboards and TV outside the parks, and even inside the parks, they use the "Toy Story Mania!" logo in the resort, at the Tram Loading area, Downtown Disney, and signage next to the Ticket Booths. But the signage on the attraction, and on the Park Maps says "Toy Story Midway Mania!". If the park "officials", and that being Bob Iger and the rest of the main Corporate group uses "Toy Story Mania!", including on ALL Media events, including opening ceremonies and Press Releases, I don't see why someone can say that "Toy Story Midway Mania!" takes precedence over "Toy Story Mania!". I think the best wording is...
Toy Story Mania! (also known as Toy Story Midway Mania!")
Since the Park OFFICIAL spokespeople use the "Toy Story Mania!" name.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.181.42 (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Something to consider: Disney was contractually prohibited from using the Disney-MGM Studios name in certain marketing vehicles, like the free vacation-planning kit. In that kit, the park consistently was called The Disney Studios and the company went as far as visually altering the Animation Courtyard arch to remove the Disney-MGM Studios name and logo in the accompanying VHS tape and DVD. So in some contexts, the park was marketed as The Disney Studios but I don't think there's any doubt that the park's name was Disney-MGM Studios during that time. I've seen references to a TV commercial for the Toy Story attraction that similarly altered the California marquee to remove the word "Midway". My point is that sometimes the "marketing" name should be considered an exception, not the rule.
I don't understand some people's need to declare only one name "official" when both are in use by the same company at the same time. Sure, if Iger and the public relations department call it Toy Story Mania! that's an "official" name. But aren't the Toy Story Midway Mania! signs erected throughout both parks "official" too? The purpose of this discussion shouldn't be to decide which name is "official"—it should be to reach consensus on a logical naming standard that can apply throughout Wikipedia. —Whoville (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Using the above example, the WP article was named "Disney-MGM Studios", regardless of what the marketing people called it. I'm leaning towards using the official in-park marquee name for all WP articles as opposed to whatever marketing phrasing is used (i believe in casual conversation, people will call it "midway mania", although the acronym for the Monster's Inc Laugh Floor attraction has surprisingly not turned out to be as popular as I would have hoped) SpikeJones (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't think the attractions should be named after the "commonly referred to" name, since that isn't official. I think the article should be named after whatever the attraction is called in the park on the sign itself. If there are multiple versions of the name in each park, then maybe something like this could be done: Buzz Lightyear (attractions). Then there are attractions like Astro Orbitor that has had many different names over the years and is basically the same ride. All these changes in names are pretty rare, so I say stick with the official sign in the park, and when there is a dispute, discuss it on that attraction's talk page. --blm07 16:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The manin page of Toy Story Midway Mania starts with Toy Story Midway Mania! (marketed as Toy Story Mania!). If Disney has made the decision to market the attraction under the Toy Story Mania! name, shouldn't that be the MAIN name. Heck, all the merchandise sold in the parks related to the attraction uses the Toy Story Mania! name and logo. Everything released from Disney except the sign on the attraction and the Guides to the Magic uses the Toy Story Mania! name, but some folks here at Wikipedia want to ignore the fact that the majority of material released by Disney uses the Toy Story Mania! name 76.168.181.42 (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • First, let's remember that there is such a function on WP as a REDIRECT and DISAMBIGUATION - so we can really reduce or eliminate the consideration of end user confusion. And then as an encyclopedic we should consider using the longest, most descriptive title as possible. Most companies in their communication will drop the "corporation" part of their name, such as HP (instead of Hewlett-Packard Company) which might actually to serve as an excellent example - so with this as an example, lets us the longest name, such as TSMM or MTP instead of the shortened names, but certainly include appropriate redirects and/or disambiguation pages for the other AKA, such as teacups or HP. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
We'll need to consider Expedition Everest's renaming while we're at it. Can we check the history to see if there was any commentary for the shorter name? SpikeJones (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Peer Review: Disney's Polynesian Resort

You all are encouraged to participate in the peer review of Disney's Polynesian Resort (direct to link to the review page). I've completed a major article overhaul recently, and am interested to hear feedback and what others think is needed to promote the article to GA status. Thanks. csaribay (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)