Talk:Walt Disney World

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Walt Disney World Mike Cline (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Walt Disney World Resort → Disney World – For the same reason we use Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton), Guinea pig (not Cavia porcellus), United Kingdom (not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), etc., etc. as the titles of those articles: WP:COMMONNAME. Per the Google test, "Disney World" gets about 10x as many hits as "Walt Disney World Resort". Clearly the topic of this article is primary for Disney World since it redirects here, so there is no reason to not use the much more common, natural, recognizable and concise name. Born2cycle (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:MOSTM, we can't just make up a name for a trademarked entity. --McDoobAU93 19:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That's a novel argument! But WP:MOSTM, which applies to trademark references in article content, has no application to article title naming - if it did countless articles would have to be renamed. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support We really need to start getting away from this trend of using official names for article titles. It's not only getting out if hand but it's becoming absurd. "Disney World" is a very common usage for the park and not a made up name. Wikipedia articles use the common name of lots of trademarked entities. JOJ ^Hutton 19:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

True, "Disney World" is a very common usage for the park, but there are 4 theme parks in the resort. We shouldn't move to such an ambiguous title. Not clear what you think is getting absurd – is there a move some place to use official names more? I haven't noticed such a trend. Dicklyon (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, though I would support "Walt Disney World". To those familiar with the topic, the bare "Disney World" name sounds amateurish and non-professional. It does not make for an encyclopedic tone. (cf. Britannica) Powers ^T 19:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • First, that's a red herring since Brittanica's article naming standards have always differed from Wikipedia's, and, in particular, generally prioritize official names over commonly used names more often that we do. Second, the notion of avoiding the most commonly used name because it "sounds sounds amateurish and non-professional" to LtPowers is not supported by WP:CRITERIA or anything at WP:AT. This is the epitome of the WP:JDLI argument. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Updated --Born2cycle (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. First of all, WP:COMMONNAME does not require us to examine colloquial, conversational usage. It asks us to look at reliable sources, giving more credence to reliable sources that are about the topic rather than those that merely mention it in passing. If you actually look at sources about Walt Disney World, such as the ones cited in this article, you will find that the current title, and simply "Walt Disney World", are both far more commonly present in such sources than not. Furthermore, COMMONNAME is not our only criterion. We also strive to be accurate and consistent with our titling, and by those measures your proposed title fails spectacularly. Accusing everyone you with whom you disagree of posting JDLI arguments is getting tiresome. Powers ^T 17:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like Powers, I'm inclined to support "Walt Disney World", based on familiar usage, but I'm not sure the pared down "Disney World" is the title to use. —C.Fred (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Concur that Walt Disney World would be a better name and still meet the proper criteria. --McDoobAU93 20:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm truly baffled by this. There can be no question (is there?) that "Disney World" is more commonly used (by a factor of 10 per WP:GOOGLETEST) and certainly universally recognizable, yes? So the preference for the more formal "Walt Disney World" is because it's more official or encyclopedic looking? But that is not called for by any of our naming criteria or naming policy. So isn't this just a personal preference argument? Or am I missing something? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I can't seem to replicate the search that you performed to have a factor of 10 difference in results. In a traditional Google search I get ~20% more results from "Walt Disney World" than just "Disney World" (39,800,000 vs. 33,100,000). Themeparkgc  Talk  07:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I strongly oppose this proposed move. "Disney World" is the name of the original concept for Disney's Florida property. What came to fruition and what we see today is irrefutably the "Walt Disney World Resort". Walt Disney designed the original concept for the Florida Project and named it "Disney World". However, after Walt's untimely death, his brother Roy renamed the project "Walt Disney World" in his memory and insisted that it be called this. Many stories tell of Roy angrily reacting to various Disney employees referring to the project as merely "Disney World". "Disney World" is not what exists in Florida today, and is in fact, very different from the "Walt Disney World Resort".

As Wikipedians, we have the responsibility to provide the most accurate information we can. Renaming an article simply because there are many people who refer to its topic by the improper name is not upholding that responsibility. I could support a proposal to rename the article "Walt Disney World", if it was determined here that a renaming absolutely needs to take place, but dropping "Walt" from the article title completely is not only inaccurate, but also a slight to the memory of both Walt and Roy.

I apologize if I come off too strongly, but I hold the memory of Walt Disney too near to my heart to comply in the removal of his association from what became of his final dream. Respectfully, —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 21:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC).

" Renaming an article simply because there are many people who refer to its topic by the improper name is not upholding that responsibility.". Ah, well, that's where you're mistaken. We don't decide what is the "proper" or "improper" name for our article titles. We reflect what reliable sources use most commonly to refer to the topics of our articles. There are considerations too, like concision, and these are all laid out at WP:AT (WP:CRITERIA in particular), but identifying the proper name is simply not among them. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Jclavet brings up a very good point that again proves this renaming won't work. The original concept for the Florida property was indeed named Disney World, and was called that by Walt himself. However, the facility in place now is properly called "Walt Disney World". Because it diverged so significantly from the "Disney World" concept that they really are two different entities. For a related example, please see that we have two articles related to what was often called Walt's last dream: the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow, also known by its acronym, EPCOT. The Florida property currently has a park named Epcot, but that is a different facility and thus a different article. I would counter that renaming this Disney World would get in the way of a future article about the Disney World concept, before it became Walt Disney World soon after Walt's death. If a spirited user, such as Jclavet, were to come along and want to write an article about the Disney World concept, he could not without starting yet another move request. --McDoobAU93 22:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I hear "the one with all the countries" way more often than "Epcot". Should we move that article? —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 00:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be relevant if "Disney World" was not commonly used to refer to the topic of this article. But it is, and nobody is even arguing to the contrary. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Definite WP:COMMONNAME case. Common usage refers to this park in a parallel manner to its western counterpart: there's Disneyland and Disney World (I don't know why one is one word and one is two, but they sound alike when spoken). --BDD (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You have just made a great point for the opposition. People talk about "Disney World" all the time without even realizing what it is. First off, Walt Disney World is not a park. It is a recreational resort with numerous theme parks, resort hotels, and other entertainment centers. Walt Disney World is not the Eastern counterpart to Disneyland, although you might say it is the Eastern counterpart to the Disneyland Resort. Had you had read my explanation above regarding the origins of its name, you might understand "why one is one word and one is two". And lastly, the two names and how "they sound alike when spoken" has absolutely nothing to do with this proposed page move. —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 03:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That is true ... in a lot of cases, "Disney World" is used to refer to the Magic Kingdom portion of the Walt Disney World complex. For example, someone may say, "We went to Epcot in the morning, then to Disney World for the fireworks". --McDoobAU93 03:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, that's fine. Your explanation is enlightening, and could fit very well into the article itself with WP:RS. But it's not relevant to the WP:COMMONNAME policy. I think if you want to oppose this request, you'll have to do one of two things: either argue that "Disney World" is not the common name for the resort, or argue in terms of another policy that can trump WP:COMMONNAME in this case. Reading over your comments, it sounds like you're arguing for the official name, but as you'll see from that page, official names are only relevant here when there's nothing else to go by. As Born2cycle pointed out, trying to suss out the right or wrong names here isn't the issue. Finally, this isn't a decision to be made based on how much we respect Walt Disney or what he called anything; that's just a complete red herring here. --BDD (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, but support Walt Disney World, without "Resort". This is what seems to be most common in sources, and seems more natural and recognizable to me. I agree that the full official name is not ideal, but I don't see any credible rationale to believe that plain Disney World is more appropriate per policy. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: as others have said the phrase Disney World can be misinterpreted as refering to the Magic Kingdom. Thus, an article titled as such would also be confusing. If the page is moved, "Walt Disney World" would be a much better alternative. Themeparkgc  Talk  07:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • We have a separate article for Magic Kingdom. There is no ambiguity issue to resolve with that topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• oppose Disney world is still somewhat ambiguous, and is often used to refer to just the theme park.--KarlB (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • In Wikipedia? If so, where? If not, what relevance does this ambiguity-outside-of-WP have to this WP RM discussion? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

Walt Disney World → Walt Disney World Resort – Walt Disney World Resort is the official name of the complex; moving the page to Walt Disney World appeared to have much opposition. Disneyland is titled by its official name, Disneyland Resort. There was no need to have moved it in the first place, because the article had been named Walt Disney World Resort for a while. 75.130.102.69 (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC) Oppose Was just recently moved to this tittle and its common on Wikipedia to use the common name. In fact it's a guideline. JOJ ^Hutton 15:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the Pertinent things to take into account are the essay Wikipedia:Official names and the policy WP:COMMONNAME which shows that we don't use a name simply because it is official. The only other reason sated, the fact that the original name was used for a while, is not even remotely a strong enough reason to dismiss the recent consensus to change to the current name. In short, it's irrelevant.--70.49.83.129 (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per the last RM; see my comments there. The current title seems like a good one. Dicklyon (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe the nominator also misread the previous move discussion. The original proposal in that debate was to move the page to "Disney World". Many opposed that specific name, but suggested "Walt Disney World" as a compromise as a more common name. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactally, while some who did object wanted to keep the old title most of them did so because suggested that Walt Disney World was better than Disney World and specifically said that they accepted that name. In the end most user actually supported the current name.--70.49.83.129 (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)