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.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.
User:Cindarella WDW, out of curiosity, where did you get the number for total acres? I can only find places that say that it's over 25,000 acres or roughly 40 square miles. Elisfkc (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Is there any way that someone could add the closings of the resort due to hurricanes/tropical storms or other major events? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@Morriswa: I went ahead and added the following public information (per your request) about safety related closures into the timeline, to ensure the article remains concise while remaining pertinent and up-to-date information.
1) Sept. 4 and 5, 1999 Hurricane Frances (considered one closure for both days)
2) Sept. 15, 1999 Hurricane Floyd
- September 11, 2001 emergency evacuation
3) Sept. 26, 2004 Hurricane Jeanne
4) October 7, 2016 Hurricane Matthew
Thank you for the suggestion! ihafeztalk 20:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I removed it, simply because the numbers did not add up (fourth, x, third, fourth). Also, the information is on the Magic Kingdom article. Elisfkc (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: I rolled back your good faith edits, since this information would be more useful on the resort-wide page, instead of being featured only on the Magic Kingdom page, since the closures affected all four parks, both theme parks, all hotels, and the shopping districts.
For clarification, 9/11 isn't considered a "closure" since it did not prevent the parks from opening, it only caused it to evacuate (in an impressive 30 minute window).ihafeztalk 21:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's well-known. However, why is it encyclopedic? How important is it to the long-term history of the parks? Before responding, I would recommend reading this section to clarify my line of questioning. --McDoobAU93 13:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Because Earlier in the morning, Disney Theme Parks had officially banned Selfie Sticks. Because the sign says "Handheld camera/cell phone extension poles, such as selfie sticks, are prohibited Theme Parks, Water Parks, and DisneyQuest. For More Information, Please visit Guest Relations"126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Joshua Raymond Hahn
Again, why is this important to the long-term history of the resort? The addition of a park/hotel is notable, and the closing of a park/hotel is notable. How is this notable? --McDoobAU93 15:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm with McDoobAU93 here. They also banned lots of costumes and the ability to bring weapons up to the main entrance & then check them with guest relations. However, that's not encyclopedic either. If we add every time that a policy change is made, it will muck up the history of the resort too much. The fact that they banned selfie sticks is already noted on the Selfie stick article, where an argument could be made that it's encyclopedic, since that could be seen as opposition to the product. However, as a whole, the banning of selfie sticks isn't really important enough to include in the history of Walt Disney World.Elisfkc (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
^^^ That is a very good point. Being banned from use is very important in the history of the selfie stick itself, but not very important in the history of the places that have banned it. --McDoobAU93 18:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to propose that Disney Global Security be merged into either Walt Disney World or Disneyland Resort. I am unsure of the merit Disney Global Security has as its own page as compared to a piece of the mentioned pages, since the content can be easily explained in the other page(s). This is also missing information about the rest of The Walt Disney Company Security. This focus on one segment of the company, and the question of merit as its own page lead me to this. Neo12345292 (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Merge. Doesn't seem notable based on the sources (both types of self sourcing) and nothing much that pops out as major coverage. Although Walt Disney Parks and Resorts might be a better place. I think that security operation is more important and more likely cover at the parks given the amount of people that go there. Since, Parks and Resorts included the two Resorts plus the cruise line, off resort Vacation Club locations and more. Spshu (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Merge I agree that it's weird, and as far as Disney Parks articles go, it is kind of an orphan. It also does not seem to be notable. Elisfkc (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Merge. It is an orphan article so it's probably not as notable by itself. epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Well that's what I initially thought based on Spshu's comment, but the article says they're responsible for security at the company's other facilities in addition to the resort complexes and cruise ships. PowersT 00:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment – I'm not convinced it should be merged. For one, we don't have any agreement on which article it should be merged with. Second, there are non-primary sources cited in the article (although really there should be more). And finally, the length of the article means it would be a difficult merge into an already lengthy article. Length is one of the primary reasons subjects like this are split off, and any merger would mean trimming a lot of this down in the process. It's possible that much of the information is extraneous and can be trimmed, but I haven't seen that specifically discussed here, and it's definitely a big concern that needs to be addressed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion - I think that the Disney World section should be merged into the Disney World page. The other sections should go in their respective pages. JeffreyLoeber (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)