Talk:Disneyland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Fiftieth anniversary featured article bid!

I propose the Disneyland article be a feature article on the main page on May 5, when the celebrations for it's fiftieth anniversary commence. We could add something in the article that lets Main Page viewers know it is Disneyland's birthday straight away, and since my previous failed bid to get the article featured a lot of changes have been made for the better. I haven't put the article forward for selection because I want to sort out anything negative with the article that you lot have noticed before we put it forward. Speedway 19:14 9 April 2005 (UTC)

OK. I am going to put in a bid for Featured Article Candidate. But there are two main points to sort out. Say the article was featured, we would need to make the opening paragraph more wide-sweeping, including tidbits about attractions and the five lands etc. We also need an image. Now, I am quite surprised that the article doesn't have a photo of Sleeping Beauty Castle somewhere on the page - considering the castle is easily the most famous symbol of Disneyland. If we can get a good quality photo of the castle on the page, then that could be used as the featured article image. Please, I would like your thoughts, may they be positive or negative.--Speedway 19:29, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Improvements

The following points have been notified (as of 25 April) by the Featured Article board that need to be rectified before beginning the nomination process.

References

A much featured point in the object answers. On the points of the skinheads and the deaths at Disneyland, references must be provided by the author of this information or by someone else who is in the know. If no-one provides any references for the information, I will remove it.

Political correctness

Another heavily featured argument. Again, the author needs to back up his/her points with references and another side of the argument. I cannot provide references but I can provide another side of the argument.

Copyright

We need to move the copyright section of the opening paragraph to another section, and 'beef' up the opening paragraph. I hope you all agree, and any help is appreciated. --Speedway 15:33, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

First Arrivals

According to this article, the first arrivals the day before the 50th anniversary came at 3pm. I was in that line, fairly near the front, and I was told by a cast member that the first was at noon. Which is correct? Is there any official source for that? --Masterzora 02:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Citizen of Disneyland

I remember that Nicolae Ceausescu was declared citizen of Disneyland. Could somebdoy explain the concept and make a list of citizens? -- Error 02:10, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Looking up "citizen of Disneyland" in Google, it doesn't look like it's anything special. They apparently hand them out to anybody who asks for them. RickK 02:48, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Rick, everyone is a citizen of Disneyland as soon as they enter the gates. However, official "citizen" stickers can be obtained from various cast members inside the park or by visiting City Hall once inside. -Shinku Hisaki 04:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

First? Hah!

I am removing "arguably the first of its kind". It is no such thing. Theme parks existed long before Disney. Coney Island has had them since the turn of the century. Brooklyn Nellie (Nricardo) 01:57, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

I put it back. Note that the article said theme parks, not amusement parks. -Branddobbe 05:22, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I still disagree. Theme park redirects to amusement park. Luna Park, one of the "amusement" parks at Coney Island, was themed, based on space travel. Just because it was smaller than the Magic Kingdom does not make it historically insignificant.

Nricardo is right, not just Luna Park, but also Dreamland. Disneyland just plain wasn't the first theme park, sorry. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:16, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

If my sources are correct, Walt Disney invented the term theme park, and was used to show that Disneyland wasn't an amusement park. Walt saw amusement parks as unclean, unsafe, and cheap. Disneyland IS a theme park, NOT an amusement park, which is one reason you probably won't see a Disney park here. -Evan Wohrman 04:11, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, Disneyland is clean, safe, and definitely not cheap.Isaac Crumm 03:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And depending on when you consider Knotts becoming a theme park, it might be the first Theme Park, but that's highly subjective.. In fact, the term 'Theme Park' itself is somewhat subjective, and whether or not a park is a theme park is often a matter of opinion. Disney's parks are always themed, but some other parks, such as Astroland on Coney Island are more ambiguous when it comes to theme.. The Amusement Parks article claims that Disneyland was the first theme park, but I'm unsure about the accuracy of the statement. --Vercalos 05:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

All it takes is a little 'net research. Holiday World is also said to be the first themed amusement park, opening in 1946. Folks on coaster-net.com discussed this and said that Knott's wasn't themed throughout the park, and Holiday World had minimal rides (if any at all at the time). DL was themed completely from head to toe. Keep in mind that whatever is decided to be "the first" needs to have that WK page updated, all the pages that may also claim to be first need to be updated, along with the Amusement park page, so that wikipedia presents a single face. That particular discussion may be better on the Amusement park:Talk page. SpikeJones 12:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say that Disneyland was the first theme park. It says that Disneyland was the, "First of its kind." Which it undoubtedly was. Just look at how big of news the park's opening was. It was huge. Disneyland may not have been the first theme park, but it was definately the first "of its kind." --Godismy420 18:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The part that qualifies the statement is the word "arguably." Disneyland is the fist of its kind, and all you guys are arguing about it. It is a good and qualified statement. Let me add: I wouldn't include it in the opening statements like it was. So, there's really no place in the article for the remark. --Magi Media 02:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It was the first park to have a spoke design with lands radiating from a central point. This has been duplicated by many parks since, so let's find some references to that idea and go from there. We need to say why it is unique. Bytebear 04:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

First is darn right. Disney spoke of his dreams, bought some land up in Anaheim and started away. Disneyland might not have been the first theme park, ok. But how about this::

Walt Disney World was. DLR Fanatic 15:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

removing see also items

The fact that this entity is owned by Disney is mentioned in the article and in the categorization, therefore the entries added to the see also section are not necessary. Gentgeen 05:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The proper name of Disneyland

I emailed Disneyland (via a form on the disneyland.com web site) to ask what the proper name of the park is. I received this in response:

The proper name is Disneyland park. However, the Park is part of the Disneyland Resort.

I don't know whether this clears anything up - should we replace all occurences of "Disneyland" with "Disneyland park" now? - but I figured I'd post the official word here. - Brian Kendig 15:23, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Most people never refer to it as "Disneyland park," and it can be confused with the magic kingdom park at Disneyland Resort Paris, which is also called "Disneyland park." I think it is best left the way it is. - Evanwohrman 03:19, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Leave it the way it is. Personally, I wouldn't even bother creating a redirect from Disneyland Park to Disneyland, it would be unnecessary. The first/second paragraph should probably be revised ever-so-slightly though. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 20:19, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I added a footnote to explain that US Trademark law dictates that a trademark like Disneyland must be used as an adjective to mofigy a generic word, such as park. Of course, popular usage is to say "I drank a Coke" or "I'll Xerox that", etc. However, companies who fail to use their trademarks in the proper way may lose their rights to enforce their trademarks. That is why Walt Disney Co is likely to refer to the park as "Disneyland Park" in anything offical that they put out. Johntex 15:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

This is not exactly the case. Nowhere in US law does it say that a trademark MUST be an adjective. However, most lawyers would advise such use, since it reduces the likelihood that a trademark will slip into generic use. Many companies do NOT use their trademarks as adjectives. —Morven 16:54, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have noticed recently that even Disney is starting to not add "park" at the end of the name. Pretty much any announcement you hear will say "Disneyland" instead of "Disneyland park." The "park" use has seemed to have decreased since the beginning of the 50th anniversary. --Evanwohrman 21:50, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

If you want to talk about it here or out loud to your friends, Just say "Disneyland in like Anaheim." Or DLR and Disneyland Resort or something like that, Cause then people know what in the world you're talking about. --DLR_Fanatic 15:32, July 23, 2007

Team Disney Anaheim

Team Disney Anaheim was the name given to Disneyland Resort Management by Paul Pressler in a bid to liven up the running of the place. The bright yellow building backstage in the Resort that houses the Anaheim branch of Imagineering, Disneyland Resort Marketing and Matt Ouimet's office etc is known in Disney literature as Team Disney Anaheim HQ. The name has fallen out of favour much less since Matt Ouimet became the big man of the place, but is still the official name of Disneyland Resort Management & Maintenance. I have re-edited what was previously 'the Disney Company' then 'Team Disney Anaheim' then 'the Disney Company' again to 'the Walt Disney Company'. Speedway 20:18 4 Jan 05 (UTC)

Needs attention?

Someone added a "this article is in need of attention" notice to the article, but I can't find the article's entry in any of the categories on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, so I don't know what attention that person feels it needs - can someone point me to the entry? - Brian Kendig 15:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the fac page, someone commented that it needed re-sectioning. Other than that as a possible source, I dunno. Didn't seem that bad to me, although it isn't quite up to featured article level yet. Vaoverland 17:53, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I also just went looking and can't find anything. So I'm removing the tag. Elf | Talk 18:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Vavoerland - this was probably due to the discussion around nominating for feature article status. Johntex 19:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally - I've done a lot of work to the article in response to the fac comment that the article needed re-sectioning. If other people have ideas about how to make this closer to being a real featured article someday, please jump in. :) - Brian Kendig 22:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Move monorail & railroad to their own articles?

Hey, every other disneyland attraction that has more that the paragraph of info given in list of current Disneyland attractions has its own article--except the monorail and the railroad, which for some odd reason have left all of their info in the main disneyland article. This means that if I want to direct someone from the List of... page to more info on either attraction, I have to link them back to, e.g., Disneyland#Monorail, which seems like an inside-out way to do it. So, unless anyone objects soon, I'll go ahead & move those out into their own articles. (Normally I'd just do it but with all the activity & interest at the moment...) Elf | Talk 00:26, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have been working on some other parts (mostly) trying to get the POV issue eased up a bit. I agree that the railroad and monorail sections could go separate. But, try to keep some of the stuff about Walt's backyard railroad as a predecessor and prototype for these Disneyland features in the main article if you can. I also feel we are missing a lot of history. In thsi article, we jump from the park as it opened in the 1950s and shortly thereafter all the way to the 1990s. Poof. OK, well it's magic, but... Maybe someone else can take a whack at it, I'm going to take a break. Vaoverland 00:52, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

There has to be some happy medium - we should be able to leave enough for flavor in the main article while allowing the coverage to expand in a seperate article without the constraints of being in the main article.

I have Broggie's book on the Disneyland Railroads and an acquaintance is one of the locomotive engineers, so I think we could make the coverage quite in-depth. —Morven 02:10, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

I am quite knowledgable in both the Disneyland and the Walt Disney World Monorails. I would love to have some part in creating an article about them, albeit in a joint article with the railroad? Andy 11:06, Jan 15 2005 (UTC)

OK, so maybe one article titled Disneyland transportation with redirects from Disneyland Monorail and Disneyland Railroad? The only problem with the "transportation" title is that that doesn't preclude discussing the parking lot trams, the main-street vehicles, the riverboats, and so on. Would Disneyland railways be a better combined title? And, oh yeah, the "Disneyland" in the title *would* preclude discussing the Disneyworld monorail--which we probably don't want to do, given your suggestion to talk about them together. Elf | Talk 20:18, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind if they are split articles or both in one. I wouldn't contribute much to the railroad article if you did split them, as I am nowhere near as knowledgable in Disneyland Railroad as the Disneyland Monorail. Andy 21:16 15 Jan 05

New entertainment section

This section could be much larger. Probably should be titled "Live entertainment". Questions--is the spelling "Slewfoot Sue"? And is it the Trash Can Band, Garbage Can Trio, or some combination--I've got it written down as several variations, even though they say exactly who they are at the end of every performance? Anyone who wants to add to, clean up, or come up with a better way for organizing this, don't let me stand in your way. Elf | Talk 21:24, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it is either Slewfoot or Sluefoot. Could I include the residents' of Main Street, like the gossip, or the housewife etc?

Andy 21:32 15 Jan 05

Yeah, I was wondering about Sluefoot. Guess I have to do more research... Hate when that happens. I'm not familiar with the main street residents. So I guess it won't be me adding anything. :-) Elf | Talk 21:48, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well what are we going to do about the railroad/monorail issue?! We might as well sort something out while we are both online. Andy 21:56 15 Jan 05

I think this article is off the fac list for now. We can try when its a little better. Vaoverland 02:18, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Should the Characters have their own page? (205.250.167.76 04:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

Disneyland Maps

I hope I haven't violated rules, but I just added a link to my website (non-commerical, I don't earn anything from it) that documents all of the large format, poster-sized maps sold in Disneyland from 1958 to today. My question to the community is whether it would be useful to drag the whole thing into Wikipedia as a page on Disneyland maps. I'm willing to do that, recognizing that I lose editorial control, but I really like Wikipedia's approach to content. So the first question is whether the community thinks that would be a useful addition?

Second question is whether you think I'm going to run into copyright problems. The maps are copyrighted by The Walt Disney Company, and so far I haven't had any trouble. If you go to the currently existing website at Mouse Maps, you see that I don't have entire maps on the site, but pieces. I woudn't want to violate Wikipedia's policies and it would seem to me that fair use would permit small pieces of the map to be used in this way. So, is there a problem with that?

Keep up the good work on the Disneyland page! --billlund 22:06, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Hi, Billlund! You haven't violated any rules as long as your site pertains to Disneyland. Otherwise, it wouldn't need to be here. Wikipedia has no say in what you put in your website, but if needed, it could be taken off the links. I don't think the size of the map you have on your site really matters, either. --Evanwohrman 01:18, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

(When did people start using * to indent instead of :? Odd how things change over time...) Copying even parts of the maps--since they're fairly recognizable--could possibly be a copyright issue. I don't know all of the ramifications of copyright law, but I think it would be best to leave them at your site and not upload them to Wikipedia, because wp is trying to purge even "fair use" images and retain only free-use images, which these wouldn't be. (BTW--I've tried to buy one of the large maps on every trip to disneyland since at least the early 80s. I regret that we played with the map from our early '60s trip so much that it fell apart while we were still kids!) Elf | Talk 22:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I sometimes forget about the : as I really don't reply to talk messages as much as I start them. :) --Evanwohrman 06:56, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

It's not just you--it's everywhere all of a sudden! Maybe you started a trend. ;-) Elf | Talk 03:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

removed external DL links

To avoid a back-and-forth editing, I'll throw it here first. Fernando removed the following links:

• MiceAge.com: Disneyland rumors and gossip from Al Lutz
• The Disneyland Report: Disneyland news and Disneyland secrets
• Visions Fantastic: Disneyland videos and guide
• MousePlanet.com

The MiceAge and MousePlanet sites are generally regarded as 2 of the most reliable and Disney-Friendly news and information reporting websites. I believe MousePlanet was one of only 4 websites invited as part of the press during the July 50th birthday celebration. JimHillMedia would be another site worth linking to, although that site has expanded into some non-Disney stuff as well. The other two listed here I don't have any information on.SpikeJones 13:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I see that mouseplanet.com is still not listed as an external link. And yet it is listed as a resource (at least on the talk pages). Why isn't it listed as an external link? Can it be listed at least as a reference on various bits of information? 68.4.204.194 23:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

How can you call MiceAge and MousePlanet reliable and Disney-friendly. Most of the reporting is rumor based from unreported sources. Al Lutz has been seen talking to popcorn cart attendants to get his scoop. MiceAge is also the source of many negative and often untrue information about the park. MousePlanet is slightly better, but still not a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.71.225 (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Attractions Page

I propose that there be a subpage, List of Disneyland attractions, organized either by which "land" they appear in or by date of installation. (I think sorting by "land" would be the preferable option.) If anyone doesn't have any objections, I can start it. I would suggest that the list also include attractions that are no longer in operation as well as current ones. (I say "attractions" because that's what Disney says, and because not everything is a ride.) -Branddobbe

Sounds like a good idea. Are you proposing just a straight list-of-links, or actually describing the attractions on that page? --Morven 22:25, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It would probably be best to describe the attractions on the page, and then those that could be said to deserve their own articles (the Haunted Mansion, say) could also have links to said articles. -Branddobbe, 3:22 PM, Nov 21 2003

Sounds good to me; please feel free to start such an article and I'll see what help I can give. Living only a couple of blocks from Disneyland, I can probably verify any information about the park as it currently is ... --Morven 07:14, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Will do. List of Disneyland attractions it is. -Branddobbe, 11:24 PM PST, Nov 21 2003

I just got done writing List of current Disneyland attractions. List of past Disneyland attractions is forthcoming. Thus, I AM AWESOME -Branddobbe, 3:31 PM PST, Nov 22 2003

I recommend a single page -- List of Disneyland attractions -- which contains past AND current attractions. I don't see a need to separate them into two articles. You could list the current attractions first, then have a new section at the bottom listing extinct attractions and what land they were a part of. I also recommend expanding this article into List of Disneyland Resort attractions so that it can encompass California Adventure, too; that way we can also have a List of Walt Disney World Resort attractions, List of Tokyo Disneyland Resort attractions, etc. etc. without having to have a separate page for every single park. Brian Kendig 19:06, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• This page is getting rather long, and I was wondering why the nicely detailed information that's posted here for each of the lands (such as Tomorrowland) hasn't been moved over to the appropriate and existing sparse Tomorrowland page. Would it make sense to do so?SpikeJones 12:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• • IMHO, yes. Elf | Talk 20:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Moving to subpages?

(COPIED from the Magic Kingdom page, just in case somebody here wanted to weigh in and isn't watching over there)

I started with something small, Liberty Square, to gauge reaction. I had brought this up a few months previous and received one positive comment and no dissenters, so I waited a while to make sure nobody else would care. From an article management viewpoint, it would help minimize problems with article naming and dab pages, along with making sure that updates that affect all parks are easily handled.

Anyway, because the various MK-style park pages are getting rather long and tedious, my suggestion was to merge/migrate all the various LAND paragraphs to their own individual pages. For example, we would list "Fantasyland" on the TokyoDL, WDW, DL, etc pages with a link to the main Fantasyland page, and on that page we would list all the attractions for ALL Fantasylands throughout the organization... along with the ability to discuss/point out differences between each of the parks without having to repeat ourselves silly.

Obviously, Liberty Square is minor to this concept as it doesn't exist anywhere else but WDW - not a lot to edit/retype/dig up. The immediate question that comes to mind (and why it's good to start small like this) is what *do* we put on the main MK page in place of listing all the attraction information for each area? SpikeJones 14:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

So... nobody disagrees? Agrees? Comments? Just checking before things start shuffling around.SpikeJones 02:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Check addition to accidents

Resolved

Could someone verify the addition, about a heart "tumor" dislodging in a Space Mountain ride. Sound like an urban legend to me - if not, it has to be re-worded. --Janke | Talk 06:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The Proper Name of Disneyland: Part II

"^ Although most people refer to the park as simply "Disneyland", the official name is "Disneyland Park". United States trademark law requires that a trademark such as "Disneyland" is always used as an adjective and never as a noun or verb. Therefore, "Xerox copier" and "Disneyland Park" are correct usage, while "use a Xerox" or "come to Disneyland" are not technically correct."

You know, I am hesitant to actually believe this. What about the parks at Walt Disney World? That's in the United States. Only Animal Kingdom has "Park" at the end of it. The other parks aren't "Magic Kingdom Park," "Epcot Park," or "Disney-MGM Studios Park." I think that footnote may have come from a rumor. You never see official names like "Chevrolet Corvette Automobile" or "The Sims 2 Computer Game," now, do you? --Lyght 19:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

go check the trademark website. Disney trademarked "Disneyland" as the name of the park. I didn't dig deep, but I didn't see any "Disneyland Park" as a trademark. On the other hand, internal documentation at Disney may require them to always refer to Disneyland as "Disneyland Park" for PR purposes or otherwise. Perhaps to differentiate the park from the resort ("Disneyland" vs "Disneyland Park" vs "Disneyland Resort")? So it could still be officially "Disneyland Park" regardless of whether it's required by trademark. As for the comment about Xerox, proper use does require specifying product as in "use a Xerox brand copier", or "do you have a Kleenex tissue?"SpikeJones 14:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually Spike, I think you may have misunderstood me. My original assertion (above) was that trademarks are supposed to be used as adjectives, not nouns or verbs. If you Google "trademark use noun" you will find many cites urging to "NEVER use a trademark as a noun. Always use a trademark as an adjective modifying a noun. EXAMPLES: 1. LEGO toy blocks 2. Amstel beer"[1] Therefore, I am not saying that the word "Park" is part of the trademark, I am saying that the trademark (Disneyland) should always be used as an adjective in front of a noun (Disneyland park or Disneyland theme park or Disneyland attraction). User:Morven contends above that "Nowhere in US law does it say that a trademark MUST be an adjective. However, most lawyers would advise such use..." Assuming he is right, perhaps Disneyland thinks they are big enough with such deep pockets that no-one would possibly step on their trademark even if they ignore prevailing legal wisdom and use their trademark as a noun? The same may apply to Chevrolet, to answer Lyght's question.Johntex\^talk 22:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Update: Due to the issue raised here about whether using trademarks as a noun is dirrectly addressed by trademark law, or if it is simply best practice, I changed the footnote slightly to say "trademark practice" rather than "trademark law". This way, either way we will be correct (because if it is directly stated by law, then clearly it is also part of the best practice). Johntex\^talk 03:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Morse Code

It is doubtful that Lilian Disney "tapped" the Morse code in the recording. What the literature says, is that the recording was changed, from a somewhat racy text, to the current one, in anticipation of a visit by Mrs. Disney, who knew Morse Code. --Janke | Talk 06:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Fiftieth Anniversary

Two things. Firstly, I was just reading the article and I noticed that it mentioned that the only special freebies were the golden ears and the cupcakes. Is the special edition map worth mention? (Also, if I can get ahold of a decent scanner, should I scan the map and upload it?) Secondly, something I asked about a month ago, the page says that the first to line up for the event came in at 3pm. I was in that line, and I remember a cast member telling me that the first person to arrive came started waiting at noon. Is there an official source for the 3pm, or at least a more credible source than a guy who heard it from a guy? If not, would it be proper to change it to noon?

--Masterzora 02:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I would recommnend adding information and a list of original attractions, and that there is a plaque for each, and a golden aspect of each (i.e. a golden dumbo, golden light posts on main street, the golden teacup, etc.)

Bytebear 23:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also love to see a list of the hidden 50th mickeys. There are 50 of them scattered around the park. I have seen many of them but would love a page with a photo of each throughout the park.

Bytebear 23:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I got my wish, although am still waiting on the final vote on if it's a worthy article, but here it is: Hidden "Mickey_50_Ears" with some photos and a complete list of all 50 hidden Mickey icons. Bytebear 19:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Aerial photo

There's a nice aerial photo of Disneyland on Commons, [2], but I have a slight inkling that it may be a copyvio. If not, it would be nice to have here. Can anybody determine if the stated May 2004 date is correct, by the status of the park in the photo? If it is not a copyvio (I wonder if the uploader/photographer could have flown over the park in May 2004?), then we might have a real gem for this page. --Janke | Talk 19:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Should we

Should we make a section about how some people think that Disneyland just exists to make children buy Disney movies/products?

If you can identify some reputable references to cite, identifying evidence to that effect, rather than just "some people"'s opinions, then sure. Elf | Talk 00:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Should we give the characters their own page? (205.250.167.76 04:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

Many of the characters have their own pages already. SpikeJones 14:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the Characters you see walking around the park. (205.250.167.76 03:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC))

Can you provide an example of what you're talking about? SpikeJones 04:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. In the last couple of months various members have been around and tagged those characters that appear at Disney Parks. (154.5.194.215 23:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

Article name and disambiguization

There is a discussion about article naming and dab pages that is taking place in the Magic Kingdom page. Some of that discussion affects the Disneyland article. Please feel free to join in the discussion. ManoaChild 21:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Any photos needed?

I'm heading down to Disneyland and California Misadventure Feb 11-13 (their 50th year for my 50th year--amazing but true--). Any photos of anything in particular that anyone thinks we need? (My previous Dland photo contributions are here: User:Elf/photos (full view)#Parks.) I know there are lots of you closer to Anaheim who get there more often, but my sister's used to me dashing hither and yon at Dland with lenses and cameras and such, so thought I'd offer. Elf | Talk 23:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A good quality image of Grizzly Peak at DCA would be really good for the DCA page. Also, Paradise Pier and the Hollywood Backlot. I think we are fine for DL images. Have a great trip!--Speedway 20:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are some from the Elf Archives :-) -- not super but OK maybe? Let me know if you want me to add these somewhere specifically (like replace the (c) grizzly peak image). I just slapped together 5 images for the paradise pier but it's not a perfect panorama; I'll try to get something clearer, I guess.

• Image:Img22hollywoodbacklot fxwb.jpg
• Image:Img09GrizzlyPeak fxwb.jpg
• Image:ParadisePiermergsm wb.jpg

Elf | Talk 00:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Pretty cool! I forgot to add, night time images of either park are always great additions to Wikipedia, as are images of the hotels. --Speedway 18:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wellllllll my SLR is decidedly ill. Sigh. Guess I'm going to have to send it in for probably pricey repairs. So I took some photos with it (haven't gotten them developed yet) but I was hoping to get inside shots of Grand Californian & night shots of Hollywood Backlot, but those plans went by the wayside. I did have my little cheap digital snapshot as a backup, and got some halfway decent photos of several things in Dland and CA adventure. Choices for Grizzly Peak are on talk:Grizzly Peak. For other photo additions:

• Image:DisneylandDriverMainSt wb.jpg
• Image:TeacupsMadTeaParty wb.jpg
• Image:DisneylandTowerofTerror wb.jpg
• Image:DisneylandTarzanTreehouse wb.jpg
• Image:P2110059TarzanTreehouseBridge wb.jpg
• Image:DisneylandTarzanTreehouseLeopard_wb.jpg
• Image:DisneyAnimationFront wb.jpg
• Image:DisneyVineyards wb.jpg
• Image:P2130126GoldenDreams wb.jpg
• Image:P2130133GrandCalifSide wb.jpg
• Image:GrandCalifMain wb.jpg

Except for grizzly peak & 2 of the tarzan images, they're all in articles. Move or remove as you see fit. Elf | Talk 02:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Women in the Disneyland band

I noted in this article earlier that the band has aleways been all-male. However, last week, we're pretty sure that we saw female members of the band. Can anyone verify this? And, if so, does anyone know when the policy changed? Elf | Talk 18:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Busy season

Speaking from personal experience(I've been working there since April), Christmas and New years is the busiest time of the year for California Adventure and Disneyland(meaning the parks fill to capacity more often then than any other time of the year).--Vercalos 06:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"Carrousel"

Reading over the sections referring to the Carrousel, and the intentional misspelling of the word, I was wondering if the disclaimer "as spelled by Disney," could be better phrased as (sic.) Has there been a previous argument over this? Whursey 18:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Flowery language

Many Disney park articles seem to be a bit lacking on the sort of objectivity that is required for an enyclopedia, and are quite clearly written by fans whose communal pet peeves aren't always necessarily relevant to this medium. Though the Disneyland article is by far the best of them all, parts like this still read like veritable MiceAge columns:

"Light bulbs, which were once replaced before they burned out, not only were run to burnout but were so numerous as to make the facades they outlined look almost toothless. Fans of the park decried the perceived decline in customer value and park quality and rallied for the dismissal of the management team."

I know we as fans are the ones to write these articles, but I think we shouldn't make ourselves too important. Let's stick to the facts.

Park Open 365 Days?

I was an annual pass holder for 3 years, from 1984-1986. I know for a fact that in each of those years, they would close on Monday and Tuesday during the "Off Season", roughly from September through May. I know for a fact that this was done in 1984 and 1985. I do not know about 1986, because it was in that year that I moved from the area and did not go as often as I did before. The information for the park not being closed during the time of the filming of "National Lampoon's Vacation" must be incorrect. 72.161.165.250 14:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is documented that the park was closed on Mon/Tue early in its existence through the 70's, then only on Mondays. When Eisner took over in '84, he declared that DL would stay open 7 days a week. MousePlanet's comment on DL closing days.SpikeJones 14:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ticket Prices

In the ticket section of the article, it mentions that a 5-day pass to Disneyland in 2000 is only $99. I find this very unlikely. Although I did not visit Disneyland in 2000, I went there this year, and the price for ONE-day admission was approx. $60. Finally, with a 5-day pass in 2000 being $99, it would be cheaper than the price back in 1990, where a one-day was $23.50. So, I was wondering if someone could check the ticket prices to make sure they're accurate?

$179 & $149 for above and below 10(and all above 3 years of age) respectively... You know, it is on the Disney Resort website.... Single day, single park tickets are $59 and $49 respectively.. Of course, this is for the public and not cast members..--Vercalos 03:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone has access to older ticket price data, please fill in the appropriate table. It would be nice to have the prices (and dates of price change) all the way back to 1982.--Ahecht 21:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hidden "Mickey 50 Ears" merge

Certainly non-notable by itself, so requesting merge into here, if anything. If merge is not done, former article should be deleted entirely. (|-- UlTiMuS 21:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As author (as of 10 minutes ago -wow, people work fast), I added this article to be a list more than an information page. I want a list of where all 50 mickey'c can be found, hopefully with pictures. They will soon be gone, and I would like a perminant record or their contribution to Disneyland history. Bytebear 21:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Combining them now makes sense for the short term, but I think it should stay separated, since after the "ears" come down, it will be mostly of historical interest, and more likely to survive intact for the long term as a separate article. Leon7 22:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not merge into the 'Hidden Mickeys' article instead? SpikeJones 22:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The article will grow it only has 22 of the 50 locations posted. The Disneyland article is already huge, and over time will keep getting larger. Keep the article separate. LordBleen 03:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The Mickey ears are a popular culture form of their own that is distinct from the normal park experience.

I absolutely disagree with a merge as this article is already *way* oversized. Cburnett 22:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's add it to the see also section.--Godismy420 18:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Matterhorn

Resolved

I've heard rumors that the Matterhorn's closing, permanently. Can anyone give any explanation?--Vercalos 04:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the Matterhorn is closed until mid January I believe. As I understand it, they are replacing the cars and continuing work replacing the inner wooden structure with steel. For the past 5 or so years it has closed just after the summer season, and will continue for several years more. The best resources for up to date info on the park can be found at miceage.com or mouseplanet.com.

This brings me to two points. 1) Can we use information on said sites as references? I have seen some discussion on using them as "External Links" because of their comercial status. 2) Should we include closure schedules, like the Matterhorn and other attractions that are closed for various reasons? Bytebear 07:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

regarding including closure schedules and similar: WK is not a fan site. If the closure information is encyclopedic -- which I do not believe it is -- then it should be added. If there was a single, consistently updated page on the disney websites regarding closures, then I could see linking to that, but I wouldn't put the information here directly. As for using those MK sites as references, it's been iffy in the past. Those sites are blogs in a manner, and blogs are not supposed to be used as references. Granted, the info they both present tend NOT to be based on rumor and speculation, but it helps to have outside non-blog references collaborate their info before having the info added to WK. SpikeJones 10:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Good call. I would say that on the Matterhorn Bobsleds page, a paragraph on the refurbishment would be apropriate, but not on this page. Bytebear 17:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose all merges

I oppose any and all merges into this article. As of this momment it is 55 Kb which is closer to doubling the recommended max than being near the max. See Wikipedia:Article size. Cburnett 16:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The article just got really messed up

I just made an edit to the "Disneyland in the 21st Century" Section (adding the sentence about the purchase of strawberry fields), and when I was finished, I saw that the article was really screwed up. I looked at the History and there were a whole bunch of edits by 71.110.228.140, but I'm new to this, so I didn't know how to check and see if it was vandalism, or if I accidently screwed it up, or what. So, I'm leaving this up to someone who knows what they're doing.--Godismy420 05:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I reported him to the vandalism department, more to get an answer as to whether or not his edits were vandalism, as I'm not sure myself... His edits vastly alter the article however, so much so that at least some of it could be construed as vandalism(such as the removal of all content mentioning Disneyland in a negative light).--Vercalos 06:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've reverted his edits agqain. After I get a response from him(or before, if he doesn't respond in the next 24 hours), I'll probably sort through his edits, and add in the content appropriate to the article.. Considering the size of the article, however, it might be necessary to split it up...--Vercalos 08:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Fireworks

If possible, something should be added about the fireworks display and how persons wishing to watch them have to find seats 3-4 hours ahead of time. If you are just walking through the park when the fireworks are going off, there is a virtual army of park workers with light wands who shout, harrass, push, and yes even kick people to keep them moving and stop them from looking up at the fireworks. I was at anaheim, and no kidding I saw women with strollers and elederly people with canes getting shouted at to "keep on moving" and if people looked up at the fireworks who were not in the seated area, 3-4 park workers would converge, shoving and hustling the people along. It was really a sad thing and I lost some respect for Disney. -Husnock 07:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen that happen, and I worked there for over a year.--Vercalos 19:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I go to Disneyland about 5 times a month, and have seen the fireworks show a dozen times or so, and have walked through the crowds when trying to leave the park or go to the other side without watching the show. I admit it is a zoo of people, but it is not violent, and certainly not instigated by cast members. I would say, given the number of people, and the configuration of the park, they do a very good job of routing people through the park. You must have been there on an extremely busy day, or just had bad luck. I am often hit by canes and strollers, but never by employees of the park. 66.151.81.244 01:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My nephew is a GOOFY character at the park. This opening statement is bullsh--!!--Magi Media 01:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

We went to the park today (Sunday). The park was busy, but not super crowded. We went to the Hub at around 9:05. Fireworks start at 9:20. The hub area was half full, and Main Street was only 10% full. It was not hard to leave the park, and no pushing or shoving. Now I did go the day they do the Christmas Candlelight Procession. That was a zoo, but that was a special event. Unless there is a referrence to a particular event where someone was injured, I don't find the original opinion noteworthy. Bytebear 06:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Second most popular theme park?

I don't know that this can be judged simply by park attendance. The two Disneyland Resort theme parks don't have anywhere near the capacity of the Walt Disney World Resort, so this really isn't a fair way to evaluate the subject of popularity. If someone can find a better way to gauge this, then I'm more than happy to entertain it, but other than that it should probably be removed from the article. --Andysund 10:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

% of capacity filled? Though Disneyland hardly ever reaches capacity(except for events such as the 50th anniversary or the premier of Pirates of the Carribean).--Vercalos 23:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Disneyland does reach capacity occasionally, ususally on major holidays and weekends. For instance, last Veteran's Day weekend and the weekend following Thanksgiving this year, Disneyland was forced to close as early as noon.--gngngn 67.120.75.75 26 November 2006

Of course it can be judged by park attendance. If we used something like "% of capacity filled", then I'm going to create my own little theme park, with a capacity of one person, and claim it's always 100% filled and therefore the most popular park in the world. --Rehcsif 05:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably a more accurate way to judge the popularity would make some sort of criteria based on both percentage and total attendance.. 60% attendance of a park with capacity of 2000 would rank much higher than a park with 100% capacity of 2.

I guess I don't agree. "Popular" by definition means that people are going there. If a park had a capacity for 1 million persons, but was typically only 25% full, should it be treated as 'less popular' than one that had a capacity of 100,000 but was usually 90% full? I think not. To me, attendance figures alone determine popularity. --Rehcsif 16:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

500 million guests total have visited Disneyland, where as only a combined 42.9 million visitors have hit the four Walt Disney World Resort theme parks. So, cumulatively, more people have gone to Disneyland than Walt Disney World, and according to the above definition, Disneyland is the most popular because of this, so maybe we should change it to be the most popular park in the world? --Andysund 19:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I said in the "above definition" that popularity was cumulative. It's a current statistic, and therefore must be reported as such (per annum, for example). --Rehcsif 16:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

We're probably going to have to get a neutral opinion here. The point I'm trying to make is that there are too many variables, such as weather (Disney World rains a good majority of the winter, which drives down attendance drastically), attractions down for refurbishment, etc. None of which have anything to do with popularity, just maintanence schedules and the ecosystem. Additionally, I don't know that Disneyland or WDW even offer their yearly attendance numbers to people below stage management. Unless a Cast Member kept a tally of the daily estimate from each theme park and managed to receive those numbers on a daily basis there's no way to really gauge this. At any rate, lets just truce for now and decide via a third opinion or mediator what they feel is more correct. --Andysund 05:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know you want to drop it, but... All the factors you listed are factors which determine popularity. For example, if there was a restaurant somewhere with an awesome menu, great atmosphere, and great prices but the food made people sick, it's going to quickly not be popular. By your argument, you could say "well, it should be popular but the food quality brings it down". Just like the weather. If you had a theme park in Antartica, it isn't going to be very popular, no matter how nice of a place it is. If all the rides are typically broken down, people aren't going to come, and that means the place is less popular. We're basically saying the same thing, EXCEPT you're using these as excuses about why the parks should be more pouplar... I'm saying they are factors effecting the actual popularaity. And with that, I'll drop it. --Rehcsif 17:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll have my final say before dropping it then as well. While I see your point on some of this...I still don't see how it can be measured in the first place, as Disneyland and Walt Disney World do not release their annual park attendance numbers. Not even to Cast Members below management. If you can show me numbers for the past few years, then I'll believe that you can properly gauge it this way. The only way you can possibly pull numbers is if it is a guaranteed source from a DLR or WDWR Stage Manager or above, or if by some miracle a Resort Cast Member kept a log of the daily estimates and added them all together at the end of the year (which would involve approaching a stage manager every single day and asking them for an estimate, in which case you may or may not get an answer depending on if the manager pulled numbers that day or not). So for now, I drop this, as it's getting old, but again, I'd like to see citations for these numbers. --Andysund 21:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. I apologize if you would rather not continue this discussion, but this has been bugging me. So, the article states that "Disney World Resort" is the most popular theme park in the world, does it not? The Walt Disney World Resort in Florida is not a theme park. Is the article referring to the total number of visitors for all four parks in the resort, or just Magic Kingdom, or just Epcot, or just Disney-MGM Studios, or just Disney's Animal Kingdom? Is it possible to get this straight? Thanks, guys! 67.120.74.232 21:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is referring to Magic Kingdom itself. --Andysund 04:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the article should be changed into stating the Magic Kingdom only. Currently, the article states that the Disney World Resort is actually a theme park indirectly. 67.120.75.136 23:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would edit it, but I can't really confirm which it is trying to state, the resort as a whole or Magic Kingdom itself. This is because there is still no citation for this part of the article. I move that it be removed entirely if none can be found. --Andysund 21:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If I could provide any more insight to the popularity of Disneyland (west), when I have stood in lines during the holidays and get to meet people who are out here generally from the Midwest to see their team play one of the PAC10s in the Rose Bowl, they invariably have been to both parks, Disneyland and Disney World. They have admitted to me, an L.A. local, that "...you [we] have the better park!"--Magi Media 01:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

1313

I couldn't find any mention about Disneyland's unique street address: 1313 S. Harbor Boulevard, tributing Mickey Mouse's initials, as the letter "M" is the thirteenth letter of the alphabet. Should this be added to the article? If it already is, let me know. Thanks! 67.120.75.136 02:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I just picked this off Justdisney.com"

Disneyland's address is 1313 Harbor Boulevard. This address was picked by Walt, because at the time Disneyland was built, all that was in the area was orange groves. The explanations for the address are either that 'M' is the thirteenth letter in the alphabet, making the address MM for Mickey Mouse, or that the thirteens, being unlucky, were Walt's way of thumbing his nose at those who thought Disneyland would fail.--Magi Media 01:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

fact tag on WDW comment in the DL article

Friends, I agree that the DL article is completely oversized and needs work. Excessive kibbutzing about one sentence that had a fact tag added then removed is a bit overkill. Please refer to the Roy O. Disney article and the Walt Disney World Railroad articles for at least 2 other WP articles that contain this particular fact, or refer to any number of Walt Disney biographies, Disney tours, etc, for the citations that you are looking for. What's the real issue here -- how citation-detailed do we want the article to be; how detailed do we need the "Magic Kingdoms Around the World" section to be in this article about DL, or something else entirely? SpikeJones 20:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The general principle is to cite a reference where a fact has been, or is likely to be, challenged. If someone tags a fact in good faith as needing a source then we should attempt to find a source. But for an article to be reasonably attributed, there should be a reference for every point made. Generally one per paragraph. Your edit summary said that there are sources, can you find one? I can't see any attribution to this fact in either of those articles either. It's not good wikiquette to remove a tag placed in good faith without at least gaining consensus. --Monotonehell 21:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your last point is fair enough. On the other hand¹, is having a citation² for every³ point that is made⁴ going to make the article better overall and readable? I agree that there are some articles that are dependent on requiring accurate citations (Incidents at Disney parks, one I strive to keep properly cited, is but one example). Similarly, there is no need to jump on anyone if they also, in good faith of knowledge, remove a fact tag for items that (to the remover) doesn't need one either. Herein lies the problem: the DW to WDW name change is presented as fact during Disney tours; how does one cite this? It's listed all over the interwebs as fact, on some more-or-less reliable Disney fan sites as well as on other not-so-reliable ones. It's in Disney biographies, etc, and it's listed as such on other WP pages themselves. I do ask that those who place a fact tag do a little research themselves before slapping them around willy-nilly. Quite frankly, the entire paragraph should be removed from the DL article and placed in the WDW article, but that's a different discussion for a different day. SpikeJones 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC) ((small followup)) According to the WDW article itself, they reference specifically what Roy and Lily said regarding the renaming during the dedication. Fact-checking should be as simple as finding the speech. SpikeJones 21:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's just how Wikipedia works. Look at every single Featured Article; all stuffed with sources. You need to back up what you say here. The Disneyland Resort Paris article lives up to some of this, but it's still messy and incomplete as well. The problem is that the Disneyland article did not properly cite a single source until about an hour ago. Something needs to change or it will look horribly outdated and unfinished compared to the rest of Wikipedia. And no, you cannot cite anything said on a guided tour. You need an external article on a reliable website or something similar in printed form. SergioGeorgini 23:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the one who put the questioned sentence in there, I'm just pointing out inconsistencies in editing/fact requirement/approval/allowances across the other WP articles. The easiest thing to do? Take out the entire section of "Other Magic Kingdom Parks" and let that specific quotation/fact -- which is related to WDW and not DL -- continue to live on the WDW page where it belongs... with a found reference to the dedication where the quote occured (the mentioned biography would be the place to start, since it's mentioned in that paragraph). SpikeJones 02:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Spikejones, your example is an exaggeration from my example of one reference per point which means one reference per paragraph on average. The fact remains that this article is basically unsourced. A 50+ year old park of Disneyland's popularity has many books on the subject. We just need to start sourcing some. A good start is putting some fact tags in to prompt some people who have access to references to help out. --Monotonehell 08:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was an exaggeration. Regarding the "50+ year old park" sentence -- you know that we're discussing a WDW factoid on the DL article space, right? SpikeJones 12:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

After a little 'net digging (as I don't have any of the mentioned books on hand), I have uncovered the following items that can be used as springboards for the actual citation regarding Roy renaming/dedicating WDW to Walt (per this article, Walt Disney World Railroad , Walt Disney World, Roy O. Disney, and Walt Disney... to name but a few other WP articles that also refer to this info and will also need to contain said citation):

• The book Walt Disney World Made Simple by Todd D. McCartney (book excerpt) supposedly contains the following paragraph: In October 1971, after a lifetime of dreaming and four years of construction, the Vacation Kingdom of Walt Disney World was opened to the public. Roy 0. Disney honored his brother's memory and aspirations in his dedication speech: "Walt Disney World is a tribute to the philosophy and life of Walter Elias Disney ... and to the talents, the dedication, and the loyalty of the entire Disney organization that made Walt Disney's dream come true. May Walt Disney World bring Joy and Inspiration, and New Knowledge to all that come to this happy place ... a Magic Kingdom where the young at heart of all ages can laugh and play and learn together. Dedicated this 25th day of October, 1971." This dedication is inscribed on a bronze plaque in the Magic Kingdom. Walt had wanted to call his vacation land "Disney World", but after his death Roy insisted that it be called "Walt Disney World". The resort became an instant success and in one year it had attracted almost 11 million guests.
• The Mouseplanet blog, while a blog and not necessarily usable for a WP source in and of itself, says this: The World Symphony Orchestra, consisting of musicians from 60 countries, performed under the direction of Arthur Fiedler. A 1,500-voice choir sang “When You Wish Upon a Star and other Disney favorites. And then—in a scene that John Hench, in his book Designing Disney, calls “perhaps the most moving moment I have experienced with Mickey and our guests”—Roy O. Disney dedicated the park to his brother. This particular article doesn't explicitly say that the park was renamed from DW to WDW in the excerpt, but the full piece in Hench's book might.
• The article containing a transcript of the WDW grand opening/dedication TV show contains this paragraph: As a tribute to its creator, the complex was renamed Walt Disney World so, as Roy said, "People will always know that this was Walt's dream." The article does point out that the actual dedication does not appear on the program.
• The book Building a Company: Roy O. Disney and the Creation of an Entertainment Empire, also by Disney biographer Bob Thomas, is advertised with this blurb from the publisher: After Walt's death in 1966, Roy postponed his retirement and tirelessly devoted his energies to completing the theme park Walt had begun in Florida. When it was finished, Roy named it Walt Disney World, "so people will know that this was Walt's dream." I can only assume that it the publisher is using that sentence in their blurbs, the factoid is contained somewhere in the book itself.

Since I don't have the actual citable items at my disposal, I can't add any of these to the aforementioned articles. If someone has any of these physical items available and can add the proper citation to the appropriate fact tag, that would be appreciated. Thanks! SpikeJones 03:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

< _{CITATIONS NEEDED} >

As one who has to go through the process of having articles rated, I must add that this DL article stands no snowballs chance in hell of passing the editors for anything above a B rating. WHY? Because nothing in this article is referenced. You can write and write and write all the generally well-known tidbits of DL info you like, but without reference to a document or publication that says this article is researched, and not just contrived from memory, personal experiences, or bullsh-- this will remain a fourth-class article. It has already been turned down twice for an FA rating. WP's intent is to develop an on-line, open-air information source that has the appearance of being researched. A 55 MB article should probably have a FOOTNOTE section of 120-150 citations. This article has one! Good effin' luck!--Magi Media 03:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a wonderful, professional discussion this is. This entire comment completely throws the Wikipedia talk page guidelines out the window. It's definitely insulting, profane, not assuming good faith, and downright rude. If you want to tell the contributers to this article how to improve it, you'll need to take as step back and realize you aren't exactly up to Wikipedia standards with this comment either. --Andysund 08:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to offend some people's sensibilities with my encrypted expletives. Sometimes I become exasperated and let loose of me senses. However, I hope someone reckons the underlying message. it is a shame to see such a potentially great article go virtually unassessed because it is left without references. Like I said, been there---done that!--Magi Media 15:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page

The following was placed on my user pages, but since this is from an anon IP I doubt that they are watching their non-existent talk page...

Dear Mr. Hell,

Please don't delete my link on the Disneyland web page. You say this has nothing to do with Disneyland but it does. You say it is a commercial site and it is but it doesn't sell anything and we are across the street from Disneyland and help a lot of people, whether or not they buy anything.

Besides, I think DISNEYLAND is commercial. So, if you'd like to talk to me about your continued deletion of the information, please call me at xPhone number removedx - my name is Tom. If it's possible to leave the link, I would really appreciate it since we are in the business of supplying a lot of Disneyland information.

I have only found this site in the last month and it seems like a great resource except when people take it upon themselves to continue to undo others information. If it is, indeed, forbidden to have any information about commercial sites or endeavors, there are many that need to be deleted. For example, the Anaheim Convention Center is a site that is commercial, the only way to be listed is as a member and they sell tickets and tours and hotel rooms there.

Please let me know if sites like this will be deleted, as well.

Thank you,

Tom 75.5.162.158

Hi Tom, I think you (like many others) are unaware of a core principle of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for marketing or promotion. YES there are many other commercial links throughout Wikipedia that need to be removed. But as this is a Wiki that anyone can edit, those links can survive for a while before someone notices and removes them.

In a nutshell; external links should only be made to informational sites of academic interest. Not "how-to" sites. So an site that talks about Disneyland's history can be considered for inclusion, but a site that tells you how to book tickets can not.

Also, since editors are from all over the World, do not expect someone to phone you to talk about your edits. Further to that Wikipedia is a transparent process, all discussions regarding content should be conducted on the article in question's discussion page or users' talk pages. Not in a private conversation. --Monotonehell 09:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Management

It has been suggested that the bulk of this portion be merged into a new document. This may also be a good place to include some of the various topics around Pressler and Grier. Your thoughts??? Tiggerjay 22:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to include such a topic with a more broad existing Disney Corporate article rather than create another stub that will get lost in the morass. Perhaps Walt Disney Parks and Resorts or similar. --Monotonehell 10:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like that may be a good way to go. I was just posting this in reply to another users request. I have asked him to join this discussion. Perhaps this would be best put on the Disneyland project page and then invite others to join in from the other parks pages. Tiggerjay 23:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. While we're on it, I never understood why there's separate Disney and Disneyland projects. Seems a little redundant. But maybe not... --Monotonehell 09:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is a good deal of overlay between the two. Tiggerjay 21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

These are all great ideas which could lead into yet another page on Disney's 5 Distinct LOB's. The "Walt Disney Parks and Resorts" chain of command would be particularly intersting to those who want to dig deeper into how the parks are run at a corporate level. --Ssmccullough, 7/6/07.

Only if we receive enough referenced contributions to warrant an entire article. I think that such an article would remain a stub. It would be best to incorporate such information into an existing article and then in the future split it into a new article when it can stand on its own. --Monotonehell 03:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not do an article History of Disneyland and incorporate this information there? It would allow for a larger and more complete article. Bytebear 17:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That would make sense. Instead of making new articles for each item, we could just create a new page that talks about the History of Disneyland and such. The current article on Disneyland could be revamped to only discuss current trends and attractions. --Ssmccullough, 7/13/07.

(undent) There's quite a problem with the information in Disney articles becoming very spread out. So before we go and fork this article we should first make sure that another such article doesn't already exist. Like with the management suggestion above, all that information is already in the Disney corporate pages, with templates set up to link past CEOs and Presidents. Check out Roy O. Disney's article for an example. --Monotonehell 19:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. :) Tiggerjay 03:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the split section until this can be better thought through and/or discussed here. Tiggerjay 19:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Length and Sources

This article is really long and has very few sources it would be nice to see more sources used. There is a lot of unverified information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richandler86 (talk • contribs).

Intro; Sections of the Park

Why not just add all 8 sections on to the list? They're all at the park. It states, "The park consists of various areas with separate themes." It does not say, "when it originally opened..." I would think that would be for the history section anyway. I think either include all 8 section and not leave 3 to an aftermention or remove the list and let the "Contents" box serve it's purpose.

Another note is why is Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev mentioned in the intro. Especially his lack of attendence or significance to the park. It belongs in history or I personally think it doesn't belong at all.

What do you guys think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.28.234 (talk • contribs).

The current presentation of the park's areas is a compromise between those who view Toontown as a part of Fantasyland, NOS as a part of Adventureland and Crtitter County as part of Frontierland AND those who view them as additional lands to the original five.

The piece about Khrushchev was added as a stand alone edit by an individual editor I don't see any problem with moving it to the history section. --Monotonehell 11:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the way the lands are currently lists is a good compromise, however a little copy editing on the exact phrasing may help. I don't like the way it reads right now, but the format/concept is fine by me. Regarding Khrushchev, while I agree that it probably shouldn't belong in the intro, I'm not sure where to put it. History may be appropriate, but I'm not sure we want a separate section just for this one detail, it's almost trivia, and the last thing I want to do is create a trivia section... hmmm... I'll go work on the 5 section wording a bit, but I'm not sure about what to do with Khrushchev... Tiggerjay 11:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, checkout rev 1 on the intro, let me know what you think. I also REMOVED the Khrushchev part, and will create a new talk subject below with the original text included. Tiggerjay 11:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I shall revert it immediately ;) I added the wikilinks for consistency, but should we also have a descriptive phrase for the sub-lands like the original lands? --Monotonehell 13:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yes the other "lands" should have a description, however I was only slightly awake while doing this earlier, so I wasn't very creative in thought or word. Let me see if I have the words now, or simply copy the copy from their respective articles. :) Tiggerjay 15:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, give that a try... :) Tiggerjay 15:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I think it looks cleaner. 67.180.28.234 20:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev

In accordance with the discussion above, I have removed this part from the introduction to Disneyland since it is hardly relevant. Below is the exact text removed, so that it can be re-added later when an appropriate new home/section/etc can be found, or a general consensus to delete is made. Tiggerjay 12:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev was not one of these visitors, as security could not be established for him to visit during his U.S. tour in 1959, for which he publicly complained.

accidents?

Resolved

Didn't there use to be a section on accidents in this article? 85.227.226.149 21:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's covered in the "see also" link to Incidents at Disney parks. Bytebear 22:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Management Part II

Those of you who've really taken ownership of the article may want to look at how factual the Management part is, and some of it seems more of a rant then an encyclopedia article. "The Disneyland Resort, Unfortunately, also has a reputation for having bad Management. A Rank of "General Lead" was briefly used in 2002-2003 to save on the cost of Labor but actually got the Assistant Managers in trouble for delegating most of their job functions to the general leads who in turn, did a better job on stage with both the Guests and Cast members. Lead status was suspended in the early 1990's with mixed results (mostly positive) and again, as a cost saving measure, but proved to be impossible as the Managers and Assistant Managers were unable to keep up on supervising duties. The problem was determined by senior park management that the Cast members were not as trust worthy as the Cast Members at Walt Disney World on many fronts including reporting for shifts and using good judgment. It should also be noted that the Cast as a whole is much younger at the Disneyland Resort, with the bulk of the Cast Members being in their early 20's where as the bulk of the Cast at Walt Disney World averages early to mid 30's in age." LordBleen 06:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Good note, it has been a while since I've see the big picture of this specific section. :) Tiggerjay 00:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and would not be heartbroken at all if that particular paragraph disappeared altogether. I'm not sure how much of it can be salvaged.

Alyssa3467 08:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it.--72.208.195.160 03:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a little more effort should be put into salvaging it. There is some pertinent information within the paragraph, and there have been some studies that suggest that working conditions within Disneyland have deteriorated(Namely the Top 100 places to work in the US, which Disney dropped off of, as well as accounts from former and current employees). The whole paragraph shouldn't be deleted due to poor wording, but instead rewritten. I'm not volunteering, however, as I myself am biased, and may not be able to maintain journalistic integrity.--Vercalos 08:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Anaheim a suburb of Los Angeles

Ive noticed that the other Disneyland Parks around the globe state the city where it is located, then state that its a suburb of a major city. I was wondering why this article does not have that listed here??

FROM Disneyland (disambiguation) 1)Disneyland may refer to:

• Disneyland - theme park in Anaheim, California USA near ,......

• Disneyland Resort Paris - Disneyland Resort Paris is a holiday and recreation resort in Marne-la-Vallée, a new town in the eastern suburbs of Paris, France. The complex is located 32 km. (20 miles) from the centre of Paris and lies for the most part on the territory of the commune of Chessy.

• Hong Kong Disneyland Resort - theme park Hong Kong

• Tokyo Disneyland - is a 115 acre theme park at the Tokyo Disney Resort located in Urayasu, Chiba, Japan, near Tokyo.

Whats going on guys??

Orange County is not a suburb of Los Angeles. Our own wiki entry - Suburbs are commonly defined as residential areas on the outskirts of a city or large town. Orange County has 34 cities and 3 million people - it does not qualify as a suburb to Los Angeles, nor San Deigo. the_undertow ^talk 01:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Isnt Anaheim located with the Los Angeles Basin. That is what is stated in the Orange County Article.

And if Anaheim is not part of the L.A. Metro area then why is it in the Greater Los Angeles Article, and L.A. has a sports team located in Orange County...??(That last one is debatable). I assume this is a move by a local Orange county attitude not to associate "anything" with L.A.--Redspork02 (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as my attitude, it's not relevant. I have to adhere to WP:NPOV just like you. I don't sit here questioning your motives. The notion that Anaheim is a suburb of LA has not been used since the 50s. But what does the city of Anaheim has to say:

• Is Anaheim a suburb of Los Angeles?

No, Anaheim is located in Orange County. Orange County, California was formally organized as a political entity separate from the County of Los Angeles in 1889. [3] That's your reliable source that prevents you from adding original research and misinformation. the_undertow ^talk 00:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, a web page from an "Orange County POV", I wont attempt to add the fact to the article anymore that Anaheim (and all of Orange County) are suburbs of Los Angeles. That is neither good nor bad, maybe its not your typical "suburb" but it just "is".

Anaheim gets L.A. TV stations. Anaheim is part of the LA/OC metro area. The baseball team is "Los Angeles" Angels (just like the Rams who played in Anaheim were the "Los Angeles Rams"). People commute from Anaheim to Los Angeles (just take a look at any Metorlink train on the Orange County line, or better yet, Interstate 5 during any rush hour).

Of course, that doesn't mean Anaheim is not its own city. It is. But Anaheim and Orange County owe their existence to Los Angeles. And in many ways today, Anaheim and all of Orange County continue to be suburbs of Los Angeles. Call it L.A.'s own version of East Rutherford.--Redspork02 (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC) [4] [5]

That OC POV came from the city itself. Look again. The city of Anaheim does not consider itself a suburb, but you do? I wonder which is the reliable source and which is the agenda pusher...Suburbs are housing communities that are used for commuting to a major metro area. Orange County is self-sufficient. It is its own economy - it does not qualify under suburb, nor can you provide a reliable source that affirms your assertion. Orange County developed as a suburb of Los Angeles, but considering the mean home prices, per capita income, education level and employment rates have surpassed that of Los Angeles, it has outgrown its suburban status. As far as Orange County owing anything to Los Angeles - that is completely your point of view. Did you want to put that in the article, too? I'll go ahead and add to the article about the United States that we owe it all to England, since they were nice enough to let us emigrate. the_undertow ^talk 00:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Like it or not bro, its in the "burbs". The source that I gave you is a Travel agency that names it a suburb of Los Angeles, and it agrees and I quote "And please don't tell the 3 million locals that they live in a suburb of Los Angeles.".... Let me put it like this, If cinema wouldnt be in L.A., then Walt Disney would have never come to So. Cal. and he would have never heard of the Orange growing town 26 miles south of L.A. and Disneyland would be somewhere else. Maybe it doesnt owe it anything but theres a love hate relationship there. Englands History (Magna Carta, our language (english), common law, ect..) is very much our history, pic up a history book. Im not going to change this article, but the history section of this article needs to be updated or enhanced its awfully vague. have fun kids, your buddy--Redspork02 (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A travel agency is not a reliable source - the city of Anaheim is. I agree that Orange County originally started as a suburb of Los Angeles County, there is no denying that. But that information would be of interest on the Orange County page, but not this one. the_undertow ^talk 02:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)