Talk:Epcot/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Park Location

moved to Talk:Walt Disney World Resort SpikeJones (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I added a controversy section for the ever-growing debates on how Disney keeps updating Epcot. I think I kept a pretty neutral stance, but if someone could check my "neutrality" anyway and update the section as necessary. Sir gyre gimble 01:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

A controversy section is valid and should be returned, although it must be written objectively. For citations, all you need to do is prowl the net for dissenting opinions. I am sure you will find many sources that believe Epcot has changed its root concept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 5 July 2007.
Read the comments below regarding weasel words for some additional thoughts. Yes, it's easy to find lots of passionate fans making claims about Epcot on numerous self-published Web sites, but what percentage do those views represent among the millions of guests who have visited the park over the past 24+ years? It's important to keep some perspective about how the park is perceived by the vast majority of people who visit as opposed to annual passholders and fan-site regulars. I doubt that arguments about the appropriateness of the Spaceship Earth "wand," for example, qualify as a controversy among the general public. A section filled with that kind of minutiae is inherently subjective and doesn't contribute much of substance to an encyclopedia. —Whoville 11:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

EPCOT or Epcot

Resolved: The article was renamed. bdesham  19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The article EPCOT refers to the 1960's vision of Walt Disney's future city. The article Epcot refers to the Theme Park at Walt Disney World. They are 2 separate items and should remain separate pages and not be merged. A link should be placed at the top of each to navigate to the other one. -- Joe

Disney has officially renamed EPCOT to Epcot. It seems, then, that this article should redirect to Epcot and not vice versa. Opinions on this? If I don't get any, I'll just move it myself. -- Benjamin Esham

The fact that the organization currently known as the "Disney Corporation" wishes to change the name of EPCOT doesn't alter the fact that EPCOT was originally named by the individual Walt Disney. If the "Disney Corporation" wanted to change the name of "Mickey Mouse" to "Rodney the Pedophile", that wouldn't alter the fact that "Mickey Mouse" had existed.

It's a generally sound principle that things should be at their current name, with a mention of past names. So, yeah, if they did, the page would be moved to "Rodney the Pedophile" with a mention of the former name. -- Tarquin

Reasonable, but you assume that the corporation has the right to change the name just because they have ownership. Back when the Coca-Cola company owned Santa Claus, they could have "proclaimed" that his name was henceforth "Old Man Cola", but that wouldn't have diminished who Santa Claus was.
All this now and then stuff seems a bit off the point to me - you name articles after what they are most usually called by English speakers in the present day. If Disney were to rename "Mickey Mouse" "Rodney the Pedophile", people would, I suspect, continue to call him "Mickey Mouse," just like Santa is probably going to remain Santa in the forseeable future, come what may. So the question is, what do people most usually call EPCOT? A Google search suggests that "Epcot" is considerably more common than the all-capitals version, so the article should go there, in my opinion. --Camembert
OK, moved content to Epcot and added a REDIRECT. -- Benjamin Esham
So officially, then, Epcot is no longer an acronym, but a brand name, and well on its way to becoming an anacronym. Many people I know have grown up thinking EPCOT was an acronym for "Every Person's Country, Only Tiny". -- limesparks

Old "EPCOT Center" article

Redirected EPCOT Center to this page, here is old content of that page.

EPCOT Center is the original name of the Walt Disney World theme park Epcot.

The word EPCOT itself is an acronym for "Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow." It was created by Walt Disney in his plans for a self contained and regulated community featuring a circular shape. It featured belts offering living space and work areas extending from the central region.

After Walt's death, his ideas were adapted by Imagineers into EPCOT Center. The theme park was meant to be the "center" of the never-realized utopia. It is located in the center of the Walt Disney World property.

In recent years, EPCOT Center/Epcot has undergone many changes and the label of a utopian society center no longer applies. Disney officially opted to change the name of theme park to Epcot to better reflect its current state.

Several changes were made in the transition from EPCOT Center to Epcot as it is now. While many attractions were merely alter and others added in unoccupied spaces, some became extinct. These attractions include:

Okay.. so.. Epcot is not EPCOT Center and the two are very different.. or, one has evolved from the other. Apparently the original writers of the articles barely knew squat about the place other than what a travel brochure said - and didn't even relay the full information of that. The information needs a home. Redirecting from EPCOT Center to EPCOT to Epcot defeats the purpose.. And by the way, I stuck in "See Epcot CENTER" as a new article so if you want to redirect blatantly how about deleting the leading link from the article you're sending back to?

Epcot history

Resolved: Section added. --bdesham  19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A thought.. why not a "Epcot History" section or something as part of the original Epcot article?

Precisely Mintguy

Epcot essay

EPCOT / EPCOT Center / Epcot (by Paul Williams /

EPCOT - was the name Walt originally gave for the city portion of the Florida Project (Disney World). The theme park was NOT at the center, rather to the north of EPCOT

If you take a look at this map you'll see PARK located in the upper portion of the property (where the Magic Kingdom is today) and EPCOT (the city) is the flower looking shape in the middle.

The theme park was meant to be a revenue stream for the city... a place for the residents to work... and a tourist attraction.

EPCOT Center is what they named EPCOT when it opened in '82. It was a sort of nod to the idea that it wasn't "EPCOT" per se... but the center of what EPCOT may become.

The name was switched from the EPCOT to Epcot as the acronym no longer made sense (as noted in the listing).

I wrote the EPCOT article to illustrate the difference between the concept of the EPCOT city and the Epcot theme park. They both revolve around the same theme (albeit loosely), but they are entirely different concepts. The two articles can be connected, but I think they should be separate articles. -- Epcot82


I deleted the paragraph that basically stated that Celebration's master plan was directly influenced by epcot. This is not true. Celebration was much more influenced by new urbanist planning schemes and by the Walt Disney Corporation's desire to muscle in on land development, than by anything represented by epcot (before or after Walt took the deep freeze, I may add). Celebration, IMHO, has more similarities with Seaside, Florida (where The Truman Show was filmed) than epcot.

when you say "epcot" do you mean Epcot, EPCOT or EPCOT Center?
Any of the three would apply. Two Halves

Added the connection to Celebration, FL back in. You are correct that Celberation's master plan is nothing like Disney's original vision, but there is still a link that needs to be mentioned. Most every newspaper article about Celebration mentions Walt Disney's original dream.


I might agree that most every newspaper article contains reference to Walt Disney's intention to build a new town. But Walt's idea was so very different in style from Celebration. (EPCOT was like Tomorrowland, except one could live there.) Also, I do not remember removing that link, but I can live with the epcot article containing it. --Two Halves


In the World Showcase section, there's a sentence which lists countries not represented because they didn't want to pay for the operation. It seems to me that Africa is not a country. Should we go with "various African nations", or does anyone know a specific list? Ventura 23:20, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

I have a book about Epcot published just before the opening which lists an "Equatorial Africa" pavilion. It obviously didn't work out, but there are remnants in a little shop and food stand between Norway and Germany. A2Kafir 01:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Here we go: [1]. I'll update the article page with this information. A2Kafir 22:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Moracco is a country in Africa, and it is in the world showcase. So technically, Africa is in the park. End of discussion.

There were policital issues with Africa that halted progress. Two other places in the World Showcase were to be Spain and Israel.

For more, check out this great article:

Alternative images

I found a nice new image of the Spaceship Earth building, but this page is already quite image heavy compared to the amount of text, so I've moved the replaced image here for later user.

Spaceship Earth, as seen from outside the vistor's entrance. It is the symbol of Epcot. Mickey's magic wand and the Walt Disney World monorail track are visible beside it.

Path Colors

In the article, somebody wrote The pavement at EPCOT was engineered by Disney and Kodak photography to be painted a specific custom color of pink that makes the grass look greener and pictures look brighter.. I do not think this is specific to EPCOT, as MK and MGM also have red pathways for the same reason. Of course, at MGM it's intended to be a "red carpet" and at MK it is also throughout the park, but as used on Main Street -- the only place in the park where this is necessary -- to also more clearly indicate where the curbs are for colorblind visitors. Yes, the red color also helps OTHER colors in photos to pop, one reason why Hollywood uses a Red Carpet for celebrities. My point is that unless the Epcot pavement was specifically engineered to be red/pink versus the colors used in the other parks, this "fact" may be misplaced.SpikeJones 12:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

--- This is actually a fact - Kodak did work on helping create the perfect colours for Epcot Center. Obviously what was learned has been used at the other parks since then. You might be forgetting that film sales used to be a huge revenue generator for theme parks - hence "Kodak Photo Spots". Themepark

20 or 21 torches?

Resolved: There are 19 torches on the lagoon's edge. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The text in this article reads:

...the lagoon is surrounded by twenty large torches signifying the past twenty centuries, and the show culminates in the globe opening like a lotus blossom to reveal a twenty-first torch, representing the new century..

But over at IllumiNations: Reflections of Earth, it goes:

At the end of the show, the Earth Globe blossoms like a flower, revealing the 20th torch (representing the 20 centuries that have passed)... it 20th or 21st?--Huaiwei 19:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Twenty total torches; 19 on the lagoon and 1 in the Earth Globe. The ones on the lagoon are numbered clockwise, with #19 and #1 adjacent to each other in the northeast corner of the lagoon, near Mexico. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

New sponsorship

Orlando Sentinel article 11/8/2005 regarding new sponsorship at the park

Walt Disney Co. has signed a 12-year marketing agreement with technology giant Siemens AG that includes rights for Siemens to sponsor a number of attractions at Walt Disney World in Orlando. Siemens will have its brand on the Epcot icon, "SpaceShip Earth," the nighttime Epcot fireworks show, "Illuminations: Reflections of Earth," as well as new attractions that will be incorporated into Innoventions both at Epcot and at Disneyland Resort, the companies said today.

Siemens inks sponsorship deal with Disney

Doctorindy 13:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Original enclosure of EPCOT was not a dome

The original plans for EPCOT was not enclosed in a dome... Not a domed city... But the center hub of the city was enclosed. This included the hotel and shopping areas. The green belt that encircled the city center was not covered nor were the residential parts of EPCOT.

The industrial portions of the original EPCOT were actually in a separate section all-together from the city.

Walt's comments about planned and controlled were less about climate and more about slums, employment, traffic, etc...

Please see my site for additional information. (This is not a plug for my site - but I've spent years documenting EPCOT from every source possible).


Source: 1966 press materials (c) Walt Disney Productions

This image show the flat roof of the enclosed portion of the city center.

Also it is incorrect that the reason EPCOT wasn't built per Walt's vision was because he had to build a theme park first.

The theme park was to drive income for the entire project (along with contributions from sponsor/partner industries) - but the purpose of going to Florida was partly a theme park, MOSTLY to build the community of EPCOT.

Walt passed away before he finished his plans for EPCOT. Yes the planning teams did face legal and community governance complexities as well as the reality of the potential cost of such an undertaking, but the real reason it wasn't built was because it lacked Walt's vision and leadership. Walt himself said that EPCOT was his most important project.oiu

Original Names for EPCOT

Project Future and Project X were also early names for EPCOT.

Project X was actually the name given to the entire Walt Disney World project while it was still in its early stages, even before the site was chosen. It later became known as the Florida Project. I've never heard any reference to Project Future. Apr1fool (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

EPCOT Parody by Warner Brothers

Resolved: The material was not added. --bdesham  19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In season 3 of Batman: The Animated Series in the episode Deep Freeze, an eccentric theme park owner -- Grant Walker (likely puns on Walt Disney and later CEO / EPCOT revivalist Card Walker) -- seeks to be frozen (another common Walt Disney urban legend) to have the immortality to complete his vision of a perfect planned city of tomorrow (whereas Walt died before completing EPCOT). Without falling into original research, a respectable mention could be made of this parody with regard to EPCOT as a utopian planned city. Not to mention this constitutes a convenient jab at Disney Animation on behalf of Warner Brothers Animation studios. 09:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That's off topic. If there was a Disney vs. Warner Brothers article, or an article relating to parodies, it would go great there. But to include it with information about the park? That seems erroneous here.GS31212:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Self Cleaning Sphere

I heard that the center sphere dome of EPCOT is self cleaning. Meaning that it absorbs the rain water and mositure in the air. Then, when the temerature rises, the rain water is released from the material and basically cleans the globe. It would be great if someone who knows about this material can include this in the main article so that we can bring some awe to the wonderous structure.

Yeah... no. There is a team that cleans it every so often. Just like any other structure.Signal70 (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Rationale for the recategorization

To better explain my thoughts about recategorizing: The original EPCOT as planned by Walt Disney wasn't going to be so much a "Mickey in a spacesuit" thing (which is what the park turned out to be) as it was to be an innovative (for the time) way to design a city from the ground up. Thus I removed this article from all the Disney categories except for Category:Epcot. It seems the most appropriate place for it, and also avoids the previous case, where we had the same article in three categories that were subcategories of each other. I also added the article to Category:Planned cities, since listing this in an urban planning category is perhaps more important than listing it in a Disney category.

So there you go. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This comment refers to the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow (concept) article, and was inadvertently posted on the wrong talk page. I have re-posted this comment on Talk:Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow (concept). SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Mystery Building

Resolved: Question answered. --bdesham  19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the building inbetween Future World and World Showcase? I beleive it's called "Odessey". I peeked in it one time, and there was a photo shoot thing (for 101 dalmations, I believe). you need to put it on the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roxas43 (talkcontribs) 30 August 2006.

The Odyssey was a restuarant that was used when EPCOT first opened. It served generic fast food. --Bedford 22:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It's used frequently for private events such as the International Dinner and IllumiNations Dessert Reception (one of four Grand Gatherings experiences for parties of eight or more). It also includes the park's First Aid Center and some backstage facilities for cast members. —Whoville 00:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The 1982 Park Map of the Future

Does anyone have a copy of the original park map, made out of thin cardboard in had a rotating part that showed each feature of the park individually. I have looked on E-Bay for such, but if any one has one could a picture of it be posted. Not since 1982 has it existed as far as I know. All I know is it did exist, and that they fell apart very often. This is why they were not used very long I figure. kidsheaven 03:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

EPCOT opening and Dedication

Recent change made by someone is part correct only. The dedication was October 24, 1982. The park opened on October 1st. They were filming the opening for the Disney TV show dedication, also there were bugs in the rides early on. I remember hearing of people getting stuck in Spaceship Earth. Some sections would close for all or parts of days, others were not finished on time for the opening. Likely common to each park opening, EPCOT Center was open late til about 10pm in October, the Magic Kingdom would close early about 7pm or such. Sort of like they learned early on with Disney Land that things go wrong and the official opening is later than the actual opening of the park. I have seen on the History Channel that they had many problems back in 1955, including someone selling counterfeit tickets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kidsheaven (talkcontribs) 01:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

World Showcase maps

An unregistered user User talk: Special:Contributions/ keeps adding maps of each country's real location to each World Showcase article. It is badly placed and they ignored the warning the first time they did it. They also change whatever image was in the infobox to the flag, which I think is not necessary. --blm07 06:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I am the unregistered user who kept adding the maps of each country's real location to each World Showcase article, and the reason I did it is because I want the users to get the feel of the real deal, like they're in the actual country. I love countries of the world and I love to sense the atmosphere, such as the music, sights, costumes and architecture. So, editors, if you're reading this, I think you'll feel you want to accept my contribution. User: Anonymous 3:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

We do not accept. The images are much too big and badly placed at the top of the page. A map and flag are redundant because you can simply click on the country's link, and they definitely do not make me feel like I'm there or give me the atmosphere. They are unuseful and annoying. You sickened me by how many times you repeatedly added them back to the articles even after multiple registered users gave reason that we don't want them. Do not add the maps or flags back! Reywas92Talk 20:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

The following passages are filled with weasel words as defined at WP:WEASEL (emphasis mine). These claims should be backed up with attribution to credible sources or removed. Also remember that the views expressed on fan-oriented websites don't support the "many people claim" argument compared to the millions of guests who have visited the park since 1982. —Whoville 15:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Epcot is generally regarded as more "learning-oriented" than other theme parks. It has only three thrill rides (Test Track, Mission: SPACE, and Soarin'); the rest of its attractions are dark rides, shows, or walkthrough exhibits. Some claim that Epcot's Future World is showing its age; the exhibits there no longer represent the most modern advances in technology. There are however many cutting edge technologies still exhibited throughout the park.
Epcot is also regarded today as the quintessential park of the 1980s. There are many who feel the park is stale and severely outdated. On the other hand, there are many who enjoy the nostalgia of the 1980s, and Epcot does update both its shows and countries periodically to attempt to keep with the times.
The above quotations sound like two weasels in an argument, not just one. As somebody who often visits the park, I would like to point out a concrete symbol of what has happened to the park during the years. The first time I visited Futureworld, the background music consisted of new Disney songs expressing hope for the future. The last time I visited, the background music was "greatest hits" from the 1950s. So much for the future.CharlesTheBold (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Epcot Logo Color.png

Resolved: A user added the requisite information. --bdesham  19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Epcot Logo Color.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

New Photo

Resolved: Photo added. --bdesham  18:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a new photo because if you go to Epcot now you will see no wand. If you have a photo of Spaceship Earth without the wand from recently please put it in this article. Bernstein2291 06:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, can we get a picture of the wandless spaceship earth? 23:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Already taken care of. Now we just need a nighttime wandless picture... --Erik16 22:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I will take and upload one when I visit WDW in a couple of weeks. --bdesham  18:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Question ... there's a nighttime no-wand shot already in the article. Admittedly, it has the acrylic (Lucite?) sculpture out front which hasn't been there in ages, but the overall lighting package hasn't changed. Is a new photo necessary? I'd be all for a better one, though, if you can manage one. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking about the picture from screamscape? The sculpture isn't in the picture, I'm pretty sure what you see are reflections from the mirrors at the base of Spaceship Earth. My question is: doesn't screamscape have to give permission to use that photo here? --blm07 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's the one, and I looked at the main version to see what you meant. I would presume the site would have to give its permission, if it owns the rights to the picture. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Timeline cleanup

The timeline section of the article was too long and contained too much minutiae that really should be in each item's respective articles (things like when a ride within a pavilion was renovated, or when the nighttime show changed forms). I've left a couple of limited exceptions in place, because in two cases, the pavilion opened without what would be considered its main attraction (Journey into Imagination and Norway opening without their rides). All the pavilions are wiki-linked, so people can read the specifics if they wish. --McDoobAU93 05:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that only major milestones should be listed, not—for example—the revolving door of corporate sponsorships for attractions and minor nomenclature changes. The article should be written for the average reader, not obsessive fans tracking every tiny, incremental change. —Whoville 22:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been talking with the editor who reverted my changes. We're coming up with a compromise that adds back some of the items, but does cull out the minor stuff. In retrospect, it did get a little short after I got done with it. I think the new version is starting to get more in line with the "major milestones" vision and away from the "fanboy" vision. --McDoobAU93 17:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

World Showcase Logos

A new edition of the "Prototype" font series, used for Future World logos in Wikipedia has come out, called "Prototype Community 25". It contains the country's name in a different font for each country. I was considering whether or not to upload these and the "Odyssey" logo. Malpass93 (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I have a few suggestions: use a non-free media rationale such as the one I used here: Image:Epcot CommuniCore Logo.png, that seems to be correct. Use black font color and transparent background, and don't make the image bigger than about 300px. Maybe you can replace the flags on each country's article. --blm07 18:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I've just uploaded them. One for each country, plus the planned Spain, and the Odyssey. They are unattached to an article because I'm not sure where to put them, help would be much appreciated. Malpass93 (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Generally, the logo is normally cropped, so the logo uses up most of the image space. I've updated the American Adventure logo and article, and added a logo syntax to the ride template. Check The American Adventure to see what I've done. --blm07 01:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Name Changes

Currently the last line of the opening paragraph reads: "The second park built at the resort, it opened on October 1, 1982 and was named EPCOT Center until 1994." Should the other name changes (Epcot '94 and Epcot '95) be included in the opening paragraph? Jvsett (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The major important change was the dropping of the word "Center" and the de-capitalizing the last 4 letters. The use of the years in the "official" name is a largely trivial and exceedingly minor difference from the now-standard "Epcot" 03:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The information is already in the article. If you have factual (preferably citable) info that needs to be added, feel free to expand the current paragraph. SpikeJones (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


why is it called EPCOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Because calling it "Fred" would just confuse people. Seriously, read the "History" section of this article, and follow the appropriate links there. SpikeJones (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Stands for Every Purse Comes Out Thinner.TheJazzFan (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Image blocks

In front of Spaceship Earth are large blocks with small images printed on it. What are these called, how can I look them up, and why can't I find anything about it in the article? (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's called Leave A Legacy. —Whoville (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge from "Entertainment History of..." page to here

  • Oppose. Not part of standard setup for Disney park articles. If anything, it should be merged into some other history-related article, but not into the main article here. SpikeJones (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok, then let's separate World Showcase and Future World Attractions into their own articles. Having a "#" in the "see also" marker at the top of the respective World Showcase and Future World sections is unseemly and the article itself needs alot of work. Spinach Monster (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
While being bold is usually considered a good thing, I suggest that you fully discuss what your plans are, as breaking out any of the Disney entertainment history articles is a monumental task that should not be taken lightly or by oneself, and there may be useful history as to why things have been laid out as they were that others could chime in on. Otherwise, you may end up causing a lot of wailing and nashing of teeth...along with a horde of bad redirs that need to be fixed.SpikeJones (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
What i'm asking is not as complicated as you're putting it SpikeJones. That article needs to improved, it may improve as separate articles, it may not. But it can't hurt, because right now that article needs improvement. Spinach Monster (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


In the meantime, I looked at the formatting for the "see also" template and alleviated one of Spinach's concerns. The links should now be more reader-friendly. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
That looks great! The other article still needs some work though. It may be better as two separate articles, it may not. Couldn't hurt to try, we could always put the two parts back into the same article if that doesn't work. All i'm interested in is the improvement of those two sections and there isn't a whole lot I can do due to my lack of expertise on the subject. Spinach Monster (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Commons Orlando

I've stumbled apon this article: The Commons Orlando. Propose merging to this article or simply deleting? --Freikorp (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Subject is potentially notable, but not in current form. If anything, it would be better as a short paragraph in the main Walt Disney World Resort article instead of being merged in here, much less being a standalone article. Again, it's useless as it stands now, since it's unsourced and somewhat opinionated. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not even worth merging in. Slap a Speedy Delete on it. All that is needed, if merged, would be a statement that "Disney provides discounted housing to cast members participating in their college program." But even then, that isn't encyclopedic, sourced, or adds value to understanding how the resort works. It would be akin to "Some cast members who work at Disney live with their parents in Kissimmee." In other words, useless. SpikeJones (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I have requested it be reviewed for deletion due to violations of notability. Jvsett (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Official Album of Walt Disney World EPCOT Center

Would it be good to add a link to The Official Album of Walt Disney World EPCOT Center? -- Wavelength (talk) 04:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I vote maybe ... I think perhaps a short section for "Soundtrack albums" might be in store, or maybe a new "Marketing" section. Similarly, I wouldn't see the harm of mentioning the album in the attraction articles, especially for the original versions of said attractions. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Park layout

I'd be interested to see if there is any verifiable information regarding the placement of the pavilions within World Showcase. Some things seem obvious, but I know that "obvious" isn't good enough for an encyclopedia article. Still...the USA's neighbors to the north and south--Canada and Mexico--are actually farthest from the American pavilion, but have the honor of "anchoring" that section of the park to Future World and of being the first "countries" most visitors reach. In contrast, the American pavilion is flanked by its World War 2 enemies--Germany, Italy, and Japan--perhaps to highlight the transformation of enemies into allies. PurpleChez (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume much from adjacency; there are several plots of land intended for future expansion throughout World Showcase, including (possibly) between The American Adventure and Italy and between Italy and Germany. Powers T 17:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
It is based on aesthetics and space needs. Arrangement of the pavilions changed frequently during the design process. There's an image of a proposed layout dated 1978 in the book Designing Disney's Theme Parks: The Architecture of Reassurance, pg 166, going clockwise starting where Mexico is today: Morocco, Costa Rica, Taiwan, Australia/New Zealand, Switzerland, -gap-, W. Germany, Brazil, Japan, Poland, -gap-, Italy, Great Britain, Safari Africa, France, Mexico, -gap-, Scandinavia, Israel, S. Korea, Canada, Saudi Arabia. The book explains on the preceding pages that it evolved from a circular shopping district concept that Disney had proposed as part of the EPCOT city center. I have no idea how to wiki format anything - I just wanted to answer you question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


Opening Day: I can find no confirmation that "Genie Field" was a Walt Disney World Ambassador. Is it possible this was "Jeannie Thiele" who was named Ambassador in 1981? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JEH (talkcontribs) 19:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


I converted the first half of the timeline into prose, but the second half still needs to be converted. Also, the prose that I wrote might not be up to standards, so if anyone would like to change it, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Alexroller (talk 19:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

EPCOT or Epcot

Which is it? I count 21 instances of "Epcot" (including the title) and 13 instances of "EPCOT" (including the first word in the lead), excluding references, further reading, external links and categories. sroc 💬 08:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Both are correct depending on the context. The original concept was "EPCOT" (an acronym), and the original name of the park was "EPCOT Center". But the current name of the park (since the 90's) is "Epcot". Micah008 (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


"titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article".
"Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title".
"Parenthetical disambiguation: If natural disambiguation is not possible, add a disambiguating term in parentheses".

Mexico (Epcot)Mexico Pavilion
Norway (Epcot)Norway Pavilion
China (Epcot)China Pavilion
Germany (Epcot)Germany Pavilion
Italy (Epcot)Italy Pavilion
The American Adventure (Epcot)The American Adventure Pavilion
Japan (Epcot)Japan Pavilion
Morocco (Epcot)Morocco Pavilion
France (Epcot)France Pavilion
United Kingdom (Epcot)United Kingdom Pavilion
Canada (Epcot)Canada Pavilion
Sources: [2] [3] [4]
Any objections?
Rob984 (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

YES, strong objections! You just can't move these things to articles simply called "pavilion". "Epcot" needs to be mentioned. "Pavilion" would rather indicate Expo pavilions or any other trade fair exhibitions. I don't think any moves are necessary here, the titles are clear enough. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Btw, as you can see, China Pavilion e.g. already redirects to an Expo 2010 exhibition. These titles would make the whole issue unclear really. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Brackets are for disambigition. Nobody is going to search "Japan", expecting Japan (Epcot). "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". If you want more pricision, why not name them Epcot Mexico Pavilon? Sources refer to them like that: [5] Rob984 (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd certainly agree more with the "Epcot Mexico Pavilon" habit than renaming them to something like "Mexico Pavilon", which seems totally nondescript. Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I also agree with keeping the word Epcot in the name, and adding Pavilion helps. So, either "Epcot Mexico Pavilion" or "Mexico Pavilion (Epcot)" are improvements. Micah008 (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
"Epcot The American Adventure" is crude, so sticking with brackets is probably best. I won't move The American Adventure (Epcot) because the title already "unambiguously define[s] the topical scope of the article".
As for the rest:  Done
Regards, Rob984 (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted all of these moves as ill-considered and essentially undiscussed as this discussion was not properly advertised either at WP:RM or on the talk pages of the affected articles. The main problem with the titles is twofold. First, many of these articles have been at the current titles for a very long time with no objections regarding ambiguity. Also, many, if not all of the articles that were moved to titles such as Italy Pavilion (Epcot) are doubly unnecessarily disambiguated as there is no article titled Italy Pavilion. olderwiser 17:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, I don't think there is very good evidence for capitalizing "Pavilion". In running text at the Disney site, these are referred to as "XXXX pavilion". It only in headings where all the words appear in title case. olderwiser 18:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)