This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

Look at their website and see what they say. I know that when I worked there, it was a big deal to include "Disney's" preceeding every resort name. Now then...everytime? I don't think that's necessary, but certainly page titles and first references should use the legal name. Tiktok4321 ( talk) 16:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

---

Park Location (formerly on Epcot's talk page)

(Relevant talk section moved from Talk:Epcot, formerly titled "Park Location"

As the article has now been locked, it's time to open the floor to the discussion ... what level of detail is necessary for the location of the park? The apparent consensus is that the park is located near Orlando, and that it is part of the attractions in and around the city. The parent Walt Disney World Resort article mentions the two administrative "cities" within the resort property, Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista, which has never been disputed. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 00:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think mentioning that every single Disney theme park, hotel or smaller venue is in Lake Buena Vista, Florida or Bay Lake, Florida is unnecessary. Both aren't independent cities in the traditional sense. I think it's sufficient to note that Epcot is part of Walt Disney World Resort in Florida and let the resort article contain the minutiae about the two "cities" and the Reedy Creek Improvement District. And as I've noted elsewhere, the Walt Disney World Resort article is very clear that Disney's property is not within the city limits of Orlando. — Whoville ( talk) 00:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto what Whoville said. SpikeJones ( talk) 01:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think consensus has been reached here, but there's one detail it looks like (since the sock puppeteer is at it again) we overlooked ... the infoboxes. How should the four theme park infoboxes read? They aren't in Orlando, and Lake Buena Vista is more known, but officially they are in Bay Lake. Opinions? -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 22:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that we've been using LBV in all the infoboxes, and since that is officially what Disney refers to their location as, then that's what we should do here. This article already deals with the BL vs LBV issue, so the point, overall, should be moot. SpikeJones ( talk) 23:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Orlando vs Orlando area (formerly on DHS talk page)

(Relevant talk section moved from Talk:Disney's Hollywood Studios, formerly titled " Orlando attractions vs Florida attractions"

before things get crazy with the verting and reverting of the category, may I suggest that Malpass93 and Miamiboyzinhere take their disagreement here to work out why each feels the way they do? Thanks. SpikeJones ( talk) 20:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get into an edit war. IMO its close enough to be considered in the Orlando area. That's just my opinion though. Sorry if its winding people up! Malpass93 ( talk) 21:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not winding people up; it's turning into a revert war. Discuss your philosophies here, or else the rest of us will make a decision for you two. SpikeJones ( talk) 03:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What would you put it as, Spike? Malpass93 ( talk) 15:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned there's nothing to discuss. This is an encylopedia. How you people "feel" is irrelevant. Fact: Disneyworld is NOT in Orlando. You may want to create a category Greater Orlando attractions, as was done for Miami. As it is, Universal Studios parks are the only ones in the city limits of Orlando. None of the others are, and I will instantly revert any erroneous posts that suggest otherwise. Miamiboyzinhere ( talk) 15:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a topic to discuss, as both of you are merely reverting each other's edits and including personal attacks in the edit notes. The question is whether "Orlando attractions" does, in fact, include "Orlando-area" attractions. Semantics aside, having a "Lake Buena Vista attractions" category is just silly. Making a new category just for greater Orlando when an Orlando category already exists is also probably overkill. I don't disagree that WDW is not in the physical Orlando boundary line, but the physical location of the parks is already mentioned in the article text itself; as categories are used to group similar articles together, how granular do we really need to be? Regardless of the final solution, it needs to be then handled globally for all similar situations: New York vs New York City vs Metro Area attractions, Miami, Orange County vs Los Angeles vs Anaheim, Dallas vs Dallas-Fort Worth, etc. If you're going to go granular in this instance, then you *must* begin the process of going granular everywhere. If you're not willing to take that challenge of all other WP articles too, then there's no need to argue over the WDW park articles categorizations. SpikeJones ( talk) 16:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I *am* willing to take it everywhere. We need to follow this convention. PERIOD. -> Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Miami Miamiboyzinhere ( talk) 16:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Guess what kids? It's not in Lake Buena Vista, either. Sounds like someone didn't do their homework. According to Orange County GIS, the bulk of the Disney resort is within what is called "Bay Lake." Only a section northeast of Epcot Drive, including Downtown Disney and the Hotel Plaza, is in Lake Buena Vista. I'm still trying to figure out what's wrong with indicating that the parks are "near Orlando," especially when the category specifically states "around Orlando" and when Disney itself promotes its complex as being "near Orlando." -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 16:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Guess what? "Near" is not "in". Look it up. I have already solved the problem by creating the category Visitor attractions in Greater Orlando, following Miami's convention, so your point is moot anyway. Miamiboyzinhere ( talk) 16:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

to McDoob - you passed my location test. To MiamiBoy - is there a WP category convention that was established for areas that weren't Miami? I would prefer to see one that you didn't have a hand in already. Creating a new category was not necessarily the best option per my earlier point, nor was doing it without talking about it first since there is already a discussion going on to determine what to do. I agree with McDoob if the Orlando category was created with the purpose of representing the Orlando area as opposed to Orlando city limits that the original category would suffice. SpikeJones ( talk) 17:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Then it needs to say 'Orlando area', not just 'Orlando'. This is an encyclopedia, not grandma's table talk. Miamiboyzinhere ( talk) 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So you have decided arbitrarily that the Orlando category represents the Orlando area and not the Orlando city limits? A few here probably would have prefered to agree that was the case before you made that sweeping change. Yes, this is an encyclopedia, but your changes warranted gathering around Grandma's table to discuss them as you are not the only person with an agenda. I am still waiting for you to provide a WP category convention for area attractions that you did not participate in making. SpikeJones ( talk) 18:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't decided anything. It says what it says. Orlando is a city. It has city limits. Most of the Orlando AREA parks are not *in* Orlando. You cannot dump every park in the area into a category that is named 'Orlando'. The category must be named Greater Orlando or Orlando area. Miamiboyzinhere ( talk) 18:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is questioning the location of the parks. The questions that were originally asked that you have yet to answer are: (a) please show us the WP category convention that you cited earlier, specifically one that you have not had a hand in; (b) did the Orlando category encompass the Orlando area (as McDoob suggested), or was the Orlando category specifically for items within the city limits? If you could answer at least one of these two questions, that would be most helpful. If you can't answer these questions, then there is a possibility that your edits may be reverted due to lack of reasoning support. SpikeJones ( talk) 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the Miami category [1]. I did not have a "hand" in it. I am simply using it as a guide to correct the blatant ignorant errors that seem to cluster in this place. Miamiboyzinhere ( talk) 19:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to see a category other than Miami, as you are "Miamiboyzinhere" and therefore perhaps biased as to the Miami category's usage. So if you could provide one that supports your previous statement of We need to follow this convention, PERIOD that shows that there is, in fact, a convention beyond the Miami one that you have already worked with, that would be swell. As for your other response of immediately reverting edits just because you don't care for them, well, that's why we're discussing these things first. These articles aren't solely yours or anyone else's. SpikeJones ( talk) 19:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the greater Orlando idea, but don't appreciate this as an edit summary Miamiboy "THIS PARK IS NOT IN THE CITY OF ORLANDO YOU IDIOT". Cheers from Malpass93 ( talk) 21:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright -- research has been done for us already, and it ends up that MiamiBoy made an error in renaming the category on his own per previously-discussed and debated Wikipedia conversations on this very topic held back in April 2007. (Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_28#Category:Orlando_area_attractions for details on the change from "Orlando area" to the previous "Orlando") My proposal, as I don't think reverting things back to the way they were before is the best use of our time right now (and will only cause a cascade of additional reverts, etc) is to re-submit the category name change back to the CAT FOR DISCUSSION area to see if others hold the same opinion as they did before. SpikeJones ( talk) 05:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently this was done without discussion and totally out of process. The discussion does not belong here, it is at Deletion Review. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he's back. It's now become Bay Lake. Your thoughts. (PS I won't revert or edit that until I hear from someone what I should do) Malpass93 ( talk) 11:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

the Bay Lake category has been submitted for CFD already. If you have an opinion, post it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpikeJones ( talk • contribs) 12:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Location revisited

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)

What if the opening paragragh simply stated that WDW is located in Central Florida approximately x miles west of Orlando? As it stands now, the opening paragraph is not correct because not all of the resort is located in the two cities. The exact location could still be discussed in the other paragraphs as it is now. Apr1fool ( talk) 00:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The article does discuss the location of the park relative to Orlando proper, and how the cities of Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake came to be. I revised it to clear up the ambiguity. Opinions? -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 01:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is inconsistency with the current "Location" section as it leaves out information from that's listed in the "History" section relating to how the two cities came into existence. I would hate to duplicate the appropriate info, but to not include how those cities came to be while talking about the location is a bit off. SpikeJones ( talk) 03:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Location Revisited, Part II

WOW. So much specious, illogical, and just plain incorrect reasoning with regard to determining a location. The gist of most of the incorrect defenses here seem to involve the USPS, Disney Marketing, empirical reads of return addresses and postmarks from mailing going into and out of WDW, and worst of all, consensus. (Consensus - hah, the biggest joke of all. Consensus will tell you the Statue of Liberty is in New York, when it's really in New Jersey.) None of these has much to do with the reality of where a place is actually located.

Let me give a parallel example: the famous Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories of New York. Their name says Cold Spring Harbor. The USPS will tell you it's in Cold Spring Harbor. All the lab's correspondence displays a Cold Spring Harbor street address. Most of the people employed there think they work in Cold Spring Harbor. But the simple fact is that the labs are located in the neighboring village of Laurel Hollow, which isn't even in the same county as Cold Spring Harbor. How can I be so sure? Two reasons: 1) The best maps of the area (government census and navigational maps and ultra-local, up-to-date commercial maps -- Hagstrom in this case) show it squarely in Laurel Hollow, and 2) I followed the municipal paper trail. The labs pay taxes and file permits to the township of Oyster Bay, in which Laurel Hollow is located, and Cold Spring Harbor is not.

I've noticed in particular that things have gotten hot and heavy with regard to Epcot's location, with people ganging up on anyone who says it's located in Bay Lake, apparently to the extent that sock puppets and now lockdowns on editing the Epcot piece itself have been in play. Odd, since Epcot is plainly within the bounds of Bay Lake on the 2000 U.S. Census Map. Better yet, at least some of those in charge of Epcot, including the Director of Procurement for the Epcot division of Disney Imagineering, think Epcot is in Bay Lake. Go here to see a permit filed 1/28/2008, apparently for the demolition of some part of the Imagination Pavilion:

http://officialrecords.occompt.com/wb_or1/details.asp?doc_id=29585633&file_num=20080052043&doc_status=S

The STREET ADDRESS of the Imagination Pavilion is given as 1991 Avenue of the Stars, BAY LAKE, Florida 32830. (BTW, If you input that address to, say, maps.live.com, it'll point you to the service driveway of the Imagination Pavilion.)

The bottom line, folks, is that if by asking "Where is Epcot located?" you mean to ask "Where are the molecules that make up Epcot physically located?", and not "How do I address mail to Epcot" nor "Where does Disney say Epcot is?" nor "Where do most people think Epcot is?", then the answer is Bay Lake. Not Lake Buena Vista, not Orlando, not the Greater Orlando vicinity, but Bay Lake.

p.s. If anybody still believes that Epcot's location is Lake Buena Vista as the Wiki article states, then why haven't you done the rest of your homework and percolated that "correction" into the myriad other Wiki articles touching on this such as "Bay Lake"? - Sailorlula ( talk) 09:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

We all thank you for your input, but it is covering a lot of old ground (as you have seen). The consensus has been - so far - to indicate individual parks as "being at the WDWR" in the body of the article, and to handle the city information in the WDWR article itself. I see you made one edit to the WWoS page that places the location at WDWR instead of BL, so you seem to be in agreement with this. The reality is that the entire resort covers multiple municipalities, so it's easier to deal with location information in one article than it is to deal with it across the myriad of WDW-related articles. If you have seen LBV or BL listed elsewhere, then those items need to be addressed individually. SpikeJones ( talk) 12:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of beating the dead horse yet again, how should we handle the infoboxes? Sailorlula's edits were in the infoboxes, not like Miamiboyzinhere's rampage through the categories. Should we, like the article bodies, remove any city/state references and merely state what resort the park is a part of? This would match consensus of routing all location information to the parent Walt Disney World Resort article. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 16:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dead horses sometimes need a fresh beating, and yes there are still items for cleanup. Sailorlula's last edit on WWoS is what you suggested and, I believe, the right way to handle this if we're trying to be consistent in placing all the municipality information in this article -- which, considering the municipalities were created as part of WDWR's history, is the right place to do so. SpikeJones ( talk) 16:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I got a look at the Wide World of Sports article, and the only thing that bugs me is the double-listing of the resort name within the infobox, both under "Location" and "Resort". This seems redundant and should be streamlined. Aside from that, I concur. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 17:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that the municipalities themselves (Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista) are really just legal fictions; they are not, nor have ever been intended to be, real "cities"; both have populations under 20, and both were created as part of the secrecy surrounding the creation of WDWR. This is, as you say, well covered in the history section of the main article. While it may be techinically correct to say that parts of one park or another lie within the bounds of Bay Lake or Lake Buena Vista, those places aren't "real places" more than lines on a map, and as such, including them as part of the article is not really all that helpful to the reader. -- Jayron32. talk. contribs 17:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

^ I agree with this point completely. Inserting Bay Lake as the location of nearly every venue at Walt Disney World Resort only satisfies the fixations of a few obsessive editors determined to spread The Truth; it does very little to help readers understand where those venues are located, or what Bay Lake is.

Regarding Miamiboyzinhere: I don't recall anyone accusing him of being wrong in citing census maps to prove where venues are located; he was blocked for abusive comments and personal attacks, a near-constant stream of sock puppet IP addresses to circumvent earlier blocks, tendentious editing and a refusal to accept that articles were categorized by their proximity to Orlando. Many of his disruptive edits were made to force his viewpoint that Orlando categories demanded that the venue be located within the city limits when consensus had been reached earlier among multiple editors that it was understood to encompass venues and attractions in the surrounding metropolitan area. — Whoville ( talk) 23:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you folks have been hashing over this for a long time. However, to do wholesale reverts on all the "Lake Buena Vista" to "Bay Lake" infobox changes is just plain whacky. You're doing so on the basis of some obscure heuristic you've reached amongst yourselves, which only you-all seem to grok. Meanwhile back at the ranch, any casual reader that glances at the infoboxes is supplied location information that is just plain wrong. In the case of WWoS, wrong by an entire county. How absurd.

You state "Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista are really just legal fictions" and "those places aren't real places" -- that is totally subjective, heavy-handed, and arbitrary. You could be saying the same thing about Celebration. (Oh, and try that line of reasoning with the Orange and Osceola County tax collectors, they'd beg to differ; you can be sure they understand which park exists where!) If U.S. Census maps use the BL and LBV town designations and delineate their borders clearly (which they do), and municipal clerks accept demolition filings for buildings within Bay Lake (which they do), who are we to choose to do otherwise? Hell, in the case of WWoS you were saying it's in "Lake Buena Vista" when WWoS isn't even in the same COUNTY as Lake Buena Vista! Also, if they're fictitious, non-real places, then why display them at all? Why have the fictitious "Lake Buena Vista" displayed in nearly every infobox as you do?

I had provided (as I presume others did beofre me) census map links which plainly demonstrated that each park/area I revisioned to Bay Lake was correct. Did anybody bother to go to the links and view the maps? I didn't touch Typhoon Lagoon or Downtown Disney because they actually ARE in Lake Buena Vista. If you are going to have detailed infoboxes in each individual park article, why on earth would you choose to populate them with absolutely incorrect location info, then hand wave and say "the WDWR article will clarify all"? That doesn't do any good for readers who never jump to the WDWR article.

I believe we need to either change the location line in each infobox to say simply "Walt Disney World", go back to my location revs which were all correct, or just remove the location line from all the infoboxes. - Sailorlula ( talk) 00:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be rather wordy for someone who offered the exact same solution in your final paragraph that I proposed earlier (in this conversation, and in previous ones). As mentioned previously, you'll notice that nobody is offering a counter-argument to your placement of the facilities in a specific location. We've decided to avoid the seeming controversy by having the WDW-related parks/hotels/facilities listed as "at the Walt Disney World Resort", with all the detailed info on the physical location/history of WDWR on the WDWR page... including the info on Bay Lake/LBV and the census maps as necessary. Of course, the maps being linked on the WDWR page is superfluous if they are already existant and linked on the Bay Lake, Florida and LBV pages themselves. (and linking them on all the resort sub-pages is just, well, silly. IMO). We appreciate your passion on the topic, truly, and if it were easy enough to clean up all those articles with a wave of a hand, we would. Welcome to the happy hell of fighting to make sense of articles that are oft-vandalized/edited by fanboys and passers-by who know not what they are doing, much to our chagrin. Oh, we'll get around to fixing them. One article at a time. Care to join us? SpikeJones ( talk) 03:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK -- less words. You wanna talk fanboy agita? Try tending to the "2001: A Space Odyssey" article! So why don't we just go ahead and make all infobox location entries read "Walt Disney World Resort, Florida", and delete the redundant resort line entries? There are also plenty of incorrect in-line references to BL/LBV in 2nd-order articles like Disney's Polynesian Resort that also need tending to. - Sailorlula ( talk) 04:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I know better than to mess with most classic Sci-Fi stuff here, but I appreciate the invitation. I'm good with the infobox suggestion you have, but that could have the domino effect of forcing the similar change across all Disney-park-related infoboxes ("anaheim, ca" to "disneyland resort", "(someplace near paris)" to "Disneyland Paris", "(someplace near tokyo)" to "Tokyo Disneyland" etc.... or whatever the appropriate resort names should be. Hmmmm. Nobody in the Disney Wikiproject has seemed to join in, but there may be some folks monitoring the Disney infobox discussion. I'll go see if this would screw them up. SpikeJones ( talk) 12:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The majority of the resort is in Lake Buena Vista. Only a little bit of the property in in Bay Lake. 68DANNY2 ( talk) 21:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Your comment is already addressed in this article. SpikeJones ( talk) 21:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I know we've beat this to death, but has anyone considered just removing the location field in the info box? Is it really necessary? WDW is unique from all of the other resorts in that it's its own municipality (I know none of you need to be reminded, and granted, WDW is not the municipality name, but you get my meaning). No other resort that I known of is located in its own municipality. As far as the location of the other Disney resorts, that's someone else's problem. And, for 68DANNY2, just the opposite is true (didn't want you to go through life with it backwards). Apr1fool ( talk) 18:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it has been done. After the recent Wide World of Sports war started, I decided it was high time to be bold and make the change. The Disney Park infobox has been modified to remove the "Location" field and put the "Resort" field in its place. I've checked many of the park articles and they look to have handled the change well. I really hope this solves the problem. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 03:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Location of Wide World of Sports

I'm looking for some help on the Wide World of Sports talk page regarding its location. User Simon Bar Sinister feels that his opinion is the correct opinion dispite all of the previous discussion that has taken place on this topic. Any help would be appreciated. (It's not that big of a deal, but I get bored at work and need something to occupy my time.) Apr1fool ( talk) 02:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has been revised to reflect the consensus amongst the WDW article editors. Let me know what you think. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 16:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

It took me all of five minutes to figure out that Disney's Hollywood Studios was previously known as Disney-MGM Studios. Tiktok4321 ( talk) 16:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Your question was answered here. Unless your photos depict something unique and not already represented on Wikipedia, ask yourself whether uploading them would truly add significant value. Consider how many other people in the world also have Walt Disney World photos. It's not appropriate to create an external link to them. — Whoville ( talk) 23:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose that the bus topic be broken out into a separate transportation chapter on this page. It can be included with the monorail and boat taxis with specific (or not so specific) route information. Trying not to create a guide book here, but the modes of transit are about as interesting as the parks themselves. Tiktok4321 ( talk) 18:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. I like that idea. I also noticed that Magic Kingdom has a Transportation and Ticket Center section which I believe is unnecessary there, but would be good to cover in a transportation section here. ~ Wadester16 ( talk) 18:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to check out the appropriate Disneyland transportation pages, as they are already broken out and could be used as a model. SpikeJones ( talk) 19:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

moving this section to Walt_Disney_World_Swan

The ones on the strip all correctly state that they are in Paradise, Nevada, not Las Vegas. If that is the guideline then why don't the Orlando resorts say the specific city they are in? 74.163.224.123 ( talk) 18:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the category Category:Casinos_in_Las_Vegas, you'll see that regardless of the casino's mailing address, they're still listed as being in Las Vegas for sake of the category. If this is not what you are looking for, then you will need to be more specific with your question. I also recommend that if you have a specific question that it is better to ask it on a single appropriate page rather than to post the same question on multiple user's talk pages. SpikeJones ( talk) 19:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the category. The 1st paragraph in all the casino articles states in Paradise, Nevada. Why don't the Florida parks follow this convention? 74.163.224.123 ( talk) 18:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Next time read the question. I didn't ask about a category. Read the 1st sentence in all the Las Vegas are casinos articles, they all say in Paradise, Nevada. 74.163.224.123 ( talk) 19:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC) comment copied from User talk:McDoobAU93 SpikeJones ( talk) 19:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, you'll need to be more specific about the answer you're trying to find out. If you're refering to the WDW parks, then they are a subset of the WDW Resort page (this one) and only need to say that they are located at the resort as the parent WDW Resort page clearly talks about the location of the resort itself and the history of the Reedy Creek Improvement District, et al. Similarly, ride articles are a subset of park articles and don't need to mention their location beyond the park, as the parent pages address it appropriately. SpikeJones ( talk) 19:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As SpikeJones said, they are all grouped in the correct category. However the casino articles, and most others, also list their actual settlement since Las Vegas refers to the general area. So you can use the LV categories to find what is in the area and you can also look in the categories by settlement to find what is in each. If you think that a postal service address tells you were something is located, you are going to be using really bad information in many cases. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the post office sometimes does things out of convenience. Of course, you could also go by what the LV resorts say themselves. The Mandalay Bay website says that they are in Las Vegas on the front page. SpikeJones ( talk) 19:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The individual casino articles are just that, individual casinos. The attractions and theme parks in the Walt Disney World resort are parts to a whole. The main article is Walt Disney World Resort, and it states exactly what you've been trying to add ... that the resort is in the cities of Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake. The wikilinks to the main resort article cover where the attraction is.

As to SeaWorld, its Orlando mailing address is enough to say it's near Orlando, since it's also the closest major city to it. And category-wise, both are in the Orlando area, which is what the category is defined as, not as "within the corporate limits of Orlando."

McDoobAU93 ( talk) 20:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A recent edit started talking about a premium attraction being considered for the Resort. Several of the blogs have dubbed this "Disney's Night Kingdom," but since Disney itself has made no announcement regarding this, we should leave it for the bloggers to handle until Disney does feel it's ready to announce it, if there truly is something to announce. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 23:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe instead of having a full section for it, we should just state somewhere in the article that there are rumors it exists. Something like, "Recently there have been rumors of a fifth theme park to be called Disney's Night Kingdom, but Disney has made no official announcement about any new parks." -- User:Soulja Pigeon —Preceding undated comment added 01:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC).

Quite frankly, I don't think it needs a mention at all. Rumors start up every day about this place and nine times out of ten they are just made up so the person who started it seemed to be "in the know". This Night Kingdom crap has been going on for years now and still no official mention? Rumors. That's all it is. Don't feed the rumor mill. Signal70 ( talk) 02:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the Legendary Years of Pop Century will be finished and opened as part of Pop Century, would it be a Future Disney Resort and worth putting under the category of the WDW article? Post your comments here. 24.151.137.221 ( talk) 22:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If Legendary Years (or whatever the final name is) is considered a totally separate resort in the same vein as All-Star Resorts (with Music, Movies and Sports hotels), then perhaps. Otherwise, the expansion should be discussed within Pop Century's own article. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 16:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Walt Disney World Resort/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am sorry to inform the editors of this article that I am failing this article's WP:GAN for multiple reasons.

• There are a couple of {{ fact}} tags in the article.
• Over half the article isn't properly sources with inline citations.
• There are short paragraphs, some only a sentence or two, which points to the fact that the article is not adequately written. This article should definitely undergo a thorough copy-edit.
• Does not comply with MOS:SYL; links generally should not be linked without good reasoning.
• There's an 'Economy' section, but is doesn't contain any content.
• There is a {{ Nofootnotes}} template at the very bottom of the article.

Please make sure to resolve any and all issues before renominating the article. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thank you. Diverse Mentality 01:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone eve noticed that the entrance to Magic Kingdom is pointing north, and the entrance to Epcot if facing south? Coincidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.129.197 ( talk) 20:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a concerted effort being undertaken at OpenStreetMap to map out WDW, The Magic Kingdom is 90% complete. The maps may be of some use to the articles here at Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevedorries ( talk • contribs) 14:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Very nice, but we aren't an atlas. We don't usually include maps. Powers ^T 15:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure about that? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OpenStreetMap#Maps_in_Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.82.95 ( talk) 15:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure what I was thinking at the time. Of course we include many maps. The question, I guess, is whether a street map of a theme park is useful. Powers ^T 20:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you actually look at the maps? The parks are fully mapped for pedestrian usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.102.103 ( talk) 14:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"Walt Disney also looked to the North of Florida. He approached the city of Brunswick, GA as a location with the new I-95 interstate system. Walt Disney Production was also turned down for this location."

This is an unverifiable claim, and as such, I removed it from the article. I find it quite interesting that this was first posted today at 8:16 a.m. ET, yet I clearly remember someone calling in to a local talk radio station in Brunswick this morning not long after that time, saying that Disney did indeed consider building the park in Brunswick. This gentleman cited Wikipedia. That was mere minutes after this was posted. Unfortunately, I suspect wrongdoing here. Frenchman ( talk) 13:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You were correct in removing something that wasn't cited. This claim would require some additional research before it can be added back. The IP that added the statement geolocates to southeastern Georgia, by the by. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 13:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Changed 32 to 33 since there are actually 33 hotels listed on this page. Vpw ( talk) 17:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I heard there is a fuel leak into the aquifer under the tunnels at Walt Disney World and that Disney is paying money to not do Remediation. I'd like to see this researched and added to the article under controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.3.71 ( talk) 07:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.