Talk:Disney's Animal Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Disney (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Zoo (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoo, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to zoos, aquaria, and aviaries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
WikiProject Amusement Parks / Walt Disney Parks and Resorts  (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts task force (marked as Top-importance).
 

Nahtazu[edit]

The article says "The park's advertising makes frequent use of the made-up word "nahtazu", pronounced "not a zoo," to emphasize that it offers more than animal displays and that it aims for more of an open and free 'safari' feel in regard to the animals." I was under the impression that AK and Disney are no longer using the Nahtazu phrase in advertising and/or promoting the park. Can anyone confirm before I change the sentence into past tense? Thx. SpikeJones 20:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to Animal Kingdom tomorrow for the cast-only preview of Expedition Everest (my girlfriend is a ride engineer in the park). I'll keep my eyes open and see if I see it. Raul654 20:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I can confirm that they are no longer using "natazu" Raul654 20:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I still see ads on THE INTERNET THAT USES NAHTAZU. --Dawgs0392 01:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Rumors of animal mishandling[edit]

I've heard of the above shortly after the park opened. Has anyone else heard this and can confirm or debunk it? I, frankly, enjoyed myself when I went there years ago and everything seemed to be pretty respectful towards the animals kept there. --JerryLewisOverdrive 19:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard anything like that. I have heard quite the opposite, that Disney employed internationally recognised zoologists to help set up the park e.t.c., but nothing like mistreatment. --Speedway 19:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
There were some highly publicized animal deaths in 1998 but Disney was cleared of wrongdoing. [1] Whoville 13:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
When I was in high school, in 2002, my class took a trip to Disney World and a girl did not go in protest of the Animal Kingdom. I remember she said it was something about the way Disney obtained the animals there. She was very intelligent and works with animal conservation today, so I am assuming there is validity in what she was saying, and I am trying to find something online that further validates this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.148.189.151 (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

The following news article does not specify reasons why the issues occured, but does support the notion that there are people who believe there were animal handling issues at the time the park opened. It can be used as a stepping point for further research on the topic: CNN article from 1998 regarding Animal Kingdom SpikeJones 20:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when the park opened I remember people complaining, but I'm pretty sure Disney was proven to take better than good care of the animals quickly after. --blm07 12:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
As a castmember who works for Kilimanjaro Safari I see animal care a lot and even have some friends in that department. There isn't any animal mishandling. Disney has highly trained people looking after the animals and plenty of policies and procedures to protect them, because a lot are endangered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 97.97.36.155 (talkcontribs) 21 July 2007.
Almost one year later, I've run into an article that talks about the animal deaths. It seems that there were deaths, but they were accidents when the park first opened. I haven't heard anything since then about deaths, and certainly nothing about intentional deaths or abuse. From Wall Street Journal "Death of Wildlife At New Disney Park Is a Worry to Experts - 7 Apr. 1998":

Two weeks from the park's April 22 opening, the tally of animals that have died include four cheetah cubs, two rhinoceroses, two hippopotamuses, three herd animals and two West African crown cranes that were run over by park tour buses. "What we're talking about and experiencing is what you really can't plan for in many cases -- and that is the unknowns in dealing with exotic animals," Disney spokesman Bill Warren said.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture reviewed most of the deaths and found no violations of federal animal-welfare regulations. "Upon inspection of the records, all the animals were receiving proper care under the Animal Welfare Act, which means they had access to vets and treatment for any problems that occurred," department spokesman Jim Rogers said.

--blm07 00:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Descriptions[edit]

Wow. Does anyone else think that this entire thing looks like it was taken directly from publicity materials? 24.62.27.66 19:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Nearly all of the attraction descriptions read like gushing advertising copy from Disney. Whoville 13:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's Tough to be a Bug! - See the world through a bug's eyes as you peek into the hilarious and dazzling 3-D world of amazing and amusing insects as they astound you with a one-of-a-kind stage show. Laugh at the fun and startling in-theater effects like overhead giant spiders! The only thing that will "bug" you is if you miss it!
  • Discovery Island Trails - Saunter through these sumptuous garden pathways for glimpses of hilarious animal antics and captivating critters. Have face-to-face encounters with Galapagos tortoises, lemurs, cotton-top tamarin monkeys and other fascinating creatures.
  • Tree of Life - Marvel at this 14-story masterpiece sculpted by more than a dozen artisans. The 50-foot wide tree is the centerpiece of Disney's Animal Kingdom. The swirling tapestry of 325 animal carvings creates a staggering spectacle that is truly a sight to behold!
I love Disney, WDW and the Animal Kingdom, but this is pretty inappropriate. I'll see about fixing it up at work tomorrow. 24.62.27.66 02:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I was just thinking about that. I will try and reword it so it doesn't look like a Disney ad. Splamo 22:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This article should have a cleanup template.

Complaint about Attractions[edit]

This section sounds more like a tourist brochure then an encyclopedia article. For proof:

Exibit II:

And finally: Exibit III:

In clausula, is portio oportet exsisto Vicified addo a magis adnotatio cuspis visum. (Translation: in conclusion, this section should be Wikified to give a more neutral point of view.) 74.103.190.217

merge proposal[edit]

Beastly Kingdom doesn't have enough info on it's own to warrant it's own page. SpikeJones 02:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Since somebody merged the Beastly Kingdom article into this one...
  1. it needs to be re-written into WP standard style;
  2. the MAIN tag needs to be yanked;
  3. the original Beastly Kingdom article needs to be redirected here
  4. all files pointing to the original page need to be redirected
  5. the appropriate "unbuilt Disney attractions" page needs to be updated as necessary
any takers? SpikeJones 16:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the entire section amounts to trivia, which is counter to WP guidelines, and because none of it was cited, I've commented the text out. It's still in the source if anyone wants to tackle this but there's no reason to retain it if it isn't factual and quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.46.194 (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Name[edit]

Originally WDW was looking at calling it Wild Animal Kingdom, they soon realized that it was in conflict with Wild Kingdom a TV show that's name is copyrighted. So Disney quickly dropped the Wild and it is known as Animal Kingdom. Technically its full name is Disney's Animal Kingdom. From http://www.solarius.com/dvp/wdw/animal-kingdom.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rshah4 (talkcontribs) 14:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Article = Advert?[edit]

Many of the attraction synopses appear to have been written by a Disney executive. Whilst some of it IS being sorted out, there may be more of it, so be viligant, and destroy it on sight. Wikipedia is NOT an advertisement column! Malpass93 (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Care to cite an example of what you mean? --McDoobAU93 04:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Wild Africa Trek[edit]

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

Navboxes[edit]

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)

Infobox[edit]

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)


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)
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)
I'd suggest keeping the discussion here, to hopefully get more opinions. Elisfkc (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Dedication[edit]

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

@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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
If that is true, it will have been covered in multiple third-party sources. Has it? --John (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
@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)
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)
@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)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@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)

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)
@John: it is verifiable. I just gave you 4 locations that verify the dedication. Elisfkc (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@John: I just found four in under a minute. Elisfkc (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
@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)
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)

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