Talk:Walt Disney World

Naming conventions

Epcot is just the word Epcot now, not "Epcot Center". "Disney MGM Studios" are proper nouns, so Studios needs to be capatalized. And the Magic Kingdom's real name is the "Magic Kingdom Park". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.66.44 (talk • contribs)

Point of clarification: Phrases like "Magic Kingdom Park" and "Disney's Animal Kingdom Theme Park" are strictly Disney conventions for copyright and trademark reasons. Consider that the park guidemap given to millions of guests says only "Magic Kingdom" on the cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.66.45 (talk • contribs)

"Disney's Animal Kingdom" is widely used; apparently, cast members (employees) are not supposed to use just "Animal Kingdom". --Benjamin Geiger 20:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Park history and development timeline

Do we really want to name individual attractions (Soarin', Cinderellabration, Expedition Everest) opening in the timeline? Seems to me that it should be reserved for larger or WDW-wide events. Comments? --Comthought 13:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The timeline feels better suited for major resort milestones. —Whoville 22:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Any other comments? Anyone? --Comthought 14:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The timeline should be specific to the development and expansion of the resort itself, not of individual rides. The ride timelines can be added to each individual park (and/or land) article as appropriate. SpikeJones 15:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Then, shall we remove it? Is that a quorum? :) I've noticed that someone just added MORE rides to the timeline... --Comthought 13:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? --Comthought 22:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey look, a discussion from 2006 that was never resolved. Anyway, to continue along with what should or shouldn't be listed -- why would a park renaming be listed as a resort development? Compared to the other items on the list, a park rename didn't add anything to the resort or expand it in any way as other listed items did. Thoughts? SpikeJones (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The name change is pretty trivial in the timeline. It's an example of the kind of unencyclopedic, fan-driven minutiae throughout many Disney articles, like dates of attraction soft openings and minor refurbishments. —Whoville (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Since we have consensus, then would you like to remove the DHS entry (and make appropriate edits earlier in the timeline, or would you like me to do it? SpikeJones (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. —Whoville (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Now, what about the SEE ALSO section? Seems to be quite redundant, what with the templates and all the various embedded links already in the article. SpikeJones (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Resort location

I've noticed a recent edit on one of the WDW pages to put the location of (whatever it was) at Bay Lake, Florida. So now we have at least three different locations for WDW: Orlando, Florida, Bay Lake, Florida, and Lake Buena Vista, Florida. We should be consistent and select one official city to be listed as WDW's home -- but do we go with the general touristy "Orlando" that everybody already knows and loves, or with LBV, which is WDW's official mailing address? I think Bay Lake is an interesting sidenote to its place in WDW's governance, but shouldn't be listed as an official WDW location. SpikeJones 15:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Orlando is just wrong — none of the resort is within the city limits. (Any reference should say near Orlando.) Of the other two, Lake Buena Vista is used more often to denote the resort's location. The main WDW article could contain a section explaining Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake as part of a larger discussion of Reedy Creek Improvement District, perhaps. —Whoville 16:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The majority of the Walt Disney World is in the City of Lake Buena Vista and partly in City of Bay Lake and that it is in Orange and Osceola Counties. Further, It is located approximately 35 minutes from the city limits of Orlando so the use of Orlando in any manner to identify the Walt Disney World Resort is incorrect. 151.198.163.250 00:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the resort, including all four theme parks, is located within the City of Bay Lake. The Downtown Disney area of the resort is located in the City of Lake Buena Vista. The entire resort does use Lake Buena Vista as its mailing address, which may be the cause of some of the confusion. There is a map on the RCID site that shows the two cities and the unincorporated portions of the district (thank you Beland for the link). Apr1fool 01:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Wow, after this past week's entertainment, it looks like we've discussed this topic back in 2006. Let's take the time this week while the pages are in lockdown to fix everything up. The standard that I suggest is that ALL WDW-related articles... except for the Reedy Creek-related ones and Walt Disney World Resort that actually do need to have the info, should not refer to their specific city location, but rather should say something along the lines of "at the Walt Disney World Resort". Anyone who wants location info would then click on the resort link to see where that is. In part, this simplifies all articles and makes them consistent so we don't have 2 hotel articles saying one thing, 5 ride articles saying something else, etc. That said, there are still times (like in infoboxes) where we need to place a location. In those cases, I lean towards "Lake Buena Vista" vs "Bay Lake". Then, once we've cleaned all this up, then we can look at cleaning up the orlando-region category Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida and related similar categories that were also affected by this week's events. Some cats were CFD'd, while others were either stripped, duplicated, or mangled. And do we need List of roller coasters in Orlando, Florida (or whatever that page is that I can't find right now) as well if it can be handled via category? Thoughts? SpikeJones (talk) 14:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Note: for those of you who are merely following along, some recent history on the topic can be found here as well - Talk:Disney's_Hollywood_Studios#Orlando_attractions_vs_Florida_attractions, which also explains the historical use of the "Orlando, Florida" category decision. SpikeJones (talk) 14:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Lake Buena Vista is definitely the more known of the two administrative "cities," so I concur that, where necessary, Lake Buena Vista should be OK. Besides, I believe the Birnbaum travel guides for the resort say that any mail sent from the property is stamped "Lake Buena Vista," regardless of where it's sent from on-site.

Because that's where the nearest POST OFFICE is located, which has nothing to do with factual location. God, you people are dense. Miamiboyzinhere (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad you could join us to discuss the matter (hopefully civilly), as this topic has been bantered about for many years. You bring up an interesting, but in my mind invalid, point. To draw a real-world comparison, I physically live within the city limits of town "A" ("bay lake"). But my mailing address is covered by nearby town "B" ("lbv"). The general consensus in my area is that town "A" really consists of an area about 5 miles away from where we are so everybody uses "B" as a location description. It's just easier, plus "A" is much, much better known. And yes, LBV is what is used for all street addresses (not just postal mailing addresses) of properties at WDW. That all said, if you have noticed, nobody has questioned the description and usage of "bay lake" on the WDWResort page. We'll start with the easy question: do you have a problem with how that is presented on that page? SpikeJones (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As to the other categories, I think that a Roller Coasters in Florida category is broad enough. Any more tunneling than that and it gets weird, and opens the floodgates to more fun and adventure like we had this week. Besides, I think there are only 3-4 cities that even have coasters (Orlando area, Haines City, Tampa and Miami or Ft. Lauderdale, wherever Boomers is).

Looking forward to doing what I can to get things back up and running. As mentioned on Spike's talk page, I'm all for leaving the opening paragraphs as "park X at Walt Disney World Resort." --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Bring WikiProject Disney to life!

Disney fans rejoince, WikiProject Disney has been propsed, just add your name to the category of intrrested Wikipedians to join here(it's at the bottom). Make sure to spread the word and bring the project to a goood start! Julz

Article could use a thorough rehab.

This isn't a particularly bad article, such as the Disney's California Adventure one for example, but it isn't exactly a Featured Article candidate either.

• It has too many lists, and the 'popular attractions' part is essentially superfluous. It feels like someone put it there just to make the article longer. It doesn't add anything interesting.
• Only the history section is truly interesting. However, it needs subheadings and a clearer hierarchy.
• It lacks proper sources.
• It's full of peacock words, which render the article too chirpy and fan site-ish to be taken seriously. Example: "It even has its own fire department!". This should be integrated someplace relevant in a neutral manner. - SergioGeorgini 22:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Theme park name changes

Refering to one of Whoville's last edits today, I'm concerned about properly mentioning history of the park in combination with current news. Whoville's comment on the edit was unnecessary to note park's name change on every reference. While I agree with the sentiment, the edit that was reverted was about the resort's expansion and the opening of the Studios park in 1989. Is it incorrect to refer to the Studios as "Disney-MGM" in this specific dated context? Discussion on the name change itself is handled on the Studios page. For example, all references to the Datsun 280ZX have not been changed to Nissan 280ZX when Datsun changed names to Nissan, as the Datsun name did properly exist during those specific discussion times. SpikeJones (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about the article's very first reference to the Studios park, in the second paragraph. My interpretation of that paragraph is that it's saying These are the theme parks that currently comprise WDW, and here's when they opened. To me, it's a list of what currently exists today, using current nomenclature. I don't read it as the historical record of the resort's development over a long span of time, even though it includes opening dates. I think details about changes belong further down in the article when the topic has shifted to a recounting of the resort's development and evolution, after What Walt Disney World Resort is has been settled.

On the same subject, I think it's incorrect to have updated the park's name in the Attendance section, which lists TEA's estimates for individual park attendance in 2006. That's historical information from before the name change was ever announced. —Whoville (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the historical edit, obviously. However, making that one edit would be odd without some other reference to "Disney-MGM" in the article. In this specific case, it may be allowable to have the opening paragraph state "...and has since opened Epcot (on October 1, 1982), Disney's Hollywood Studios (on May 1, 1989 as Disney-MGM Studios), and..." so that subsequent references to DMGM, as needed, could exist. SpikeJones (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we reach consensus on whether it's necessary to note theme park name changes on virtually every reference? I don't think it's necessary to describe the four theme parks like this in the article's very first reference to them:

Construction began in 1967, less than a year after Walt Disney's death. It opened on October 1, 1971, with the Magic Kingdom theme park, and has since opened Epcot (Formerly known as EPCOT Center) (on October 1, 1982), Disney's Hollywood Studios (Formerly known as Disney-MGM Studios) (on May 1, 1989), and Disney's Animal Kingdom (on April 22, 1998).

In the "big picture" of the resort's development over the past four decades, the fact that EPCOT Center became Epcot and Disney-MGM Studios became Disney's Hollywood Studios is minor and, arguably, trivial. Changing the names of those theme parks didn't significantly alter their identity or what they represent. A more significant change is something like the Disney Institute property becoming the Saratoga Springs timeshare resort, or the evolution of Pleasure Island. I don't think edits like this are necessary and I'm hoping this talk page can contain the input of multiple editors so that new editors have additional viewpoints to consider before the same changes are re-inserted again and again. Plus, I think the name changes are better referenced on the theme park articles themselves, where they can be explained in more depth and context. —Whoville (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Disney's Hollywood Studios & Disney-MGM Studios

Since Disney's Hollywood Studios name is still relatively new, I think when references are made to the park, it would be best to put formerly Disney-MGM Studios in parentheses so people know that Disney's Hollywood Studios was Disney-MGM Studios. 68DANNY2 (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider: Disney is in the process of changing signs all over the Florida resort to display the park's new name. None of them contain an asterisk or note the former name in parentheses. In the Walt Disney World Resort article, the name change is noted near the end of the History and development section and is discussed in greater detail in the Disney's Hollywood Studios article's MGM litigation and Name change sections. I think that's enough. I think it's overkill to put (formerly Disney-MGM Studios) after every reference to Disney's Hollywood Studios. —Whoville (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Whoville. I mean, c'mon -- it's not like anyone is tagging every single reference of other things that had former names. Here's an example of how silly that would look, using the Diff'rent Strokes page as an example: ...most notably an anti-drug episode ("The Reporter", in Season 5) that featured then-First Lady Nancy Reagan (formerly Anne Frances Robbins), who promoted her "Just Say No" campaign... No, we merely mention the name change on Nancy's page itself and then move on with the rest of the information as needed. Only if there is something that is specific to requiring the "Anne Frances Robbins" name, such as a state swimming record or something else done before she became "Nancy Reagan" do we need worry about using the old name. SpikeJones (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Large Photo Album of Disney World

Hello, Recently I went to Disney World, and I have a huge photo album of the photos. Can I post it here as an external link, or is there some other place I should post it (like Commons). Is there a way I should go about posting it. I am relatively new to this. Thanks :) ADZ, CEO of ADZ's Mind (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)