Jump to content

Talk:Disney's Animal Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 172.164.47.34 (talk) at 12:25, 23 January 2017 (→‎"Planned Film"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

Wild Africa Trek

Someone should add something on this new attraction/area of park that just opened. Jjaazz (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes

Is there some reason that there is a vertical navbox just under the infobox that is titled Walt Disney World Resorts, and another horizontal one at the bottom that is also titled Walt Disney World Resorts? This seems like duplication to me. If there is something in the vertical one that is not in the horizontal one, wouldn t it be better to move the information over and only have one navbox? Donlammers (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Dan Koehl, since you have a tagged this article as "Category:Articles needing infobox zoo", I feel like this is the place to have a discussion. Is Animal Kingdom a Animal theme park, or is it a zoo with rides and such? At the moment, the article falls under both WikiProject Zoo and WikiProject Amusement Parks. It seems that those articles listed on the Animal theme park under Zoological Theme Parks use the Template:Infobox amusement park as this article does, where Zoos with Amusement Attractions use the Template:Infobox Zoo. Elisfkc (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Its not an easy question @Elisfkc:, and the only suggestion I have for this issue, after following the development for similar articles in other languages, is to use both info boxes. It may often be relevant, since the establishment of the park may be older than the establishment of the zoo within the park. Im not 100% what I actually think personally, I just refer to a relevant possibility. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is your opinion @Elisfkc:, and do you accept if I move, or copy, this discussion to "Category:Articles needing infobox zoo" talk page, if you don't have a better suggestion? maybe it would be good to get more peoples opinions? meanwhile, I signed as member of WikiProject Amusement Parks, since this is include the WikiProject Zoo, where I am presently practiclly the only active member.Dan Koehl (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest keeping the discussion here, to hopefully get more opinions. Elisfkc (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dedication

@John: why are you so intent on not having the dedication in here? Elisfkc (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John: After seeing you message on my talk page (should have been on here, FYI), please tell me how the dedication is "promotional material or poorly formatted material". Elisfkc (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's unencyclopedic. We are not here to promote Disney. Everything here needs to have proper third-party references. This is promotional, so we do not carry it. --John (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@John: How is it unencyclopedic? It is information about the park. We have a precedent. There are a lot of people who watch and work on these articles (including me). Almost everyone is fine with the dedication, and it is a big part of the history of each park. Elisfkc (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is unencyclopedic because it is a promotional item sourced only to the article it describes. There is a lot of this stuff which smells of promotion by the company and its fans. It needs a good trim. We don't work by precedent. As regards DINOSAURS, see MOS:ALLCAPS. --John (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@John: I concede that Dinosaurs is correct, compared to DINOSAURS. However, the dedication is not meant as promotional. It helps define the theme of the park and is a large part of the history of each park. Elisfkc (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that is true, it will have been covered in multiple third-party sources. Has it? --John (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@John: Official Website, Site 1, Site 2, Site 3, etc. I didn't give the some results from Google, because I figured you wouldn't count other sites, including a couple other wikis. Elisfkc (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These sources don't look that great. The official site is not third-party, Theme Park Tourist looks low-quality and promotional, and the other two look like fan sites. I was thinking of more respectable organs like the New York Times, National Geographic, that sort of thing. Or else books? There must be oodles of books on this topic, no?--John (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@John: there are any number of travel guides and such on the parks. The only book I have personally though, is an official book. And yes, I knew that the official site isn't third-party, I just wanted to throw it out there. Elisfkc (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John: since you have responded in about 45 minutes, I'm going to add back the dedication on all of the parks. Please reply here and wait for a response before reverting it. I live in the Eastern Time Zone, so if you don't get a response in the middle of the night, that's why. Elisfkc (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it is for you to provide encyclopedic sources for any material you wish to add or restore. If you are unable to do so they cannot be there. You would be better occupied finding such. Probably not a guide book. A proper source. The policy you are breaking here is WP:V and you should not be editing at all if you are not familiar with it and its application. --John (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@John: it is verifiable. I just gave you 4 locations that verify the dedication. Elisfkc (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So in your opinion, all the material you have restored on all the articles meets the standard of the policy which is "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? --John (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, yes, I believe that all of the dedications can be easily found through a third-party source that is reliable. Elisfkc (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then find them. You have demonstrated zero so far, but I will give you 24 hours to do so since you have said you can. After that point, in the absence of proper reliable third-party sourcing, I will remove them again. If you continue to edit-war to restore unsourced promotional material into articles, at that point it will become a conduct issue and you may find your editing restricted or curtailed. Good luck!! --John (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@John: I just found four in under a minute. Elisfkc (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@John: I did what you wanted on all of the pages. Why did you delete it on Disney's Hollywood Studios (which I just added back)? Elisfkc (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because we need good sources; "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" --John (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John: ok, it the Washington Post good enough? Elisfkc (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Disney's Animal Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Planned Film"

The inclusion of the a supposedly planned film is against Wikipedia rules. There have never been any sources and a quick Google search for "disney animal kingdom movie" comes up with no result. IMDb, a non-reliable source for Wikipedia, does not list it as a project for Tim Story. This has been added and removed at least 19 times since July 23, 2016 without ever having a reference (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc). Per Wikipedia:Verifiability & Wikipedia:No original research, this is not allowed. This is also not allowed per Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes. If it is tried this again, I will request for either page protection or a block against the IP address. Elisfkc (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disney%27s_Animal_Kingdom&oldid=761524375"