Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:07, 5 June 2015

	Walt Disney World was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 18, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Walt Disney World. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Walt Disney World at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disney Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Florida High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Amusement Parks: Walt Disney Parks and Resorts High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts task force (assessed as Top-importance). Spoken Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Walt Disney World Mike Cline (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Walt Disney World Resort → Disney World – For the same reason we use Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton), Guinea pig (not Cavia porcellus), United Kingdom (not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), etc., etc. as the titles of those articles: WP:COMMONNAME. Per the Google test, "Disney World" gets about 10x as many hits as "Walt Disney World Resort". Clearly the topic of this article is primary for Disney World since it redirects here, so there is no reason to not use the much more common, natural, recognizable and concise name. Born2cycle (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:MOSTM, we can't just make up a name for a trademarked entity. --McDoobAU93 19:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That's a novel argument! But WP:MOSTM, which applies to trademark references in article content, has no application to article title naming - if it did countless articles would have to be renamed. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support We really need to start getting away from this trend of using official names for article titles. It's not only getting out if hand but it's becoming absurd. "Disney World" is a very common usage for the park and not a made up name. Misplaced Pages articles use the common name of lots of trademarked entities. JOJ 19:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

True, "Disney World" is a very common usage for the park, but there are 4 theme parks in the resort. We shouldn't move to such an ambiguous title. Not clear what you think is getting absurd – is there a move some place to use official names more? I haven't noticed such a trend. Dicklyon (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, though I would support "Walt Disney World". To those familiar with the topic, the bare "Disney World" name sounds amateurish and non-professional. It does not make for an encyclopedic tone. (cf. Britannica) Powers 19:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • First, that's a red herring since Brittanica's article naming standards have always differed from Misplaced Pages's, and, in particular, generally prioritize official names over commonly used names more often that we do. Second, the notion of avoiding the most commonly used name because it "sounds sounds amateurish and non-professional" to LtPowers is not supported by WP:CRITERIA or anything at WP:AT. This is the epitome of the WP:JDLI argument. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Updated --Born2cycle (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. First of all, WP:COMMONNAME does not require us to examine colloquial, conversational usage. It asks us to look at reliable sources, giving more credence to reliable sources that are about the topic rather than those that merely mention it in passing. If you actually look at sources about Walt Disney World, such as the ones cited in this article, you will find that the current title, and simply "Walt Disney World", are both far more commonly present in such sources than not. Furthermore, COMMONNAME is not our only criterion. We also strive to be accurate and consistent with our titling, and by those measures your proposed title fails spectacularly. Accusing everyone you with whom you disagree of posting JDLI arguments is getting tiresome. Powers 17:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like Powers, I'm inclined to support "Walt Disney World", based on familiar usage, but I'm not sure the pared down "Disney World" is the title to use. —C.Fred (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Concur that Walt Disney World would be a better name and still meet the proper criteria. --McDoobAU93 20:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm truly baffled by this. There can be no question (is there?) that "Disney World" is more commonly used (by a factor of 10 per WP:GOOGLETEST) and certainly universally recognizable, yes? So the preference for the more formal "Walt Disney World" is because it's more official or encyclopedic looking? But that is not called for by any of our naming criteria or naming policy. So isn't this just a personal preference argument? Or am I missing something? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I can't seem to replicate the search that you performed to have a factor of 10 difference in results. In a traditional Google search I get ~20% more results from "Walt Disney World" than just "Disney World" (39,800,000 vs. 33,100,000). Themeparkgc  Talk  07:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I strongly oppose this proposed move. "Disney World" is the name of the original concept for Disney's Florida property. What came to fruition and what we see today is irrefutably the "Walt Disney World Resort". Walt Disney designed the original concept for the Florida Project and named it "Disney World". However, after Walt's untimely death, his brother Roy renamed the project "Walt Disney World" in his memory and insisted that it be called this. Many stories tell of Roy angrily reacting to various Disney employees referring to the project as merely "Disney World". "Disney World" is not what exists in Florida today, and is in fact, very different from the "Walt Disney World Resort".

As Wikipedians, we have the responsibility to provide the most accurate information we can. Renaming an article simply because there are many people who refer to its topic by the improper name is not upholding that responsibility. I could support a proposal to rename the article "Walt Disney World", if it was determined here that a renaming absolutely needs to take place, but dropping "Walt" from the article title completely is not only inaccurate, but also a slight to the memory of both Walt and Roy.

I apologize if I come off too strongly, but I hold the memory of Walt Disney too near to my heart to comply in the removal of his association from what became of his final dream. Respectfully, —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 21:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC).

" Renaming an article simply because there are many people who refer to its topic by the improper name is not upholding that responsibility.". Ah, well, that's where you're mistaken. We don't decide what is the "proper" or "improper" name for our article titles. We reflect what reliable sources use most commonly to refer to the topics of our articles. There are considerations too, like concision, and these are all laid out at WP:AT (WP:CRITERIA in particular), but identifying the proper name is simply not among them. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Jclavet brings up a very good point that again proves this renaming won't work. The original concept for the Florida property was indeed named Disney World, and was called that by Walt himself. However, the facility in place now is properly called "Walt Disney World". Because it diverged so significantly from the "Disney World" concept that they really are two different entities. For a related example, please see that we have two articles related to what was often called Walt's last dream: the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow, also known by its acronym, EPCOT. The Florida property currently has a park named Epcot, but that is a different facility and thus a different article. I would counter that renaming this Disney World would get in the way of a future article about the Disney World concept, before it became Walt Disney World soon after Walt's death. If a spirited user, such as Jclavet, were to come along and want to write an article about the Disney World concept, he could not without starting yet another move request. --McDoobAU93 22:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I hear "the one with all the countries" way more often than "Epcot". Should we move that article? —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 00:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be relevant if "Disney World" was not commonly used to refer to the topic of this article. But it is, and nobody is even arguing to the contrary. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Definite WP:COMMONNAME case. Common usage refers to this park in a parallel manner to its western counterpart: there's Disneyland and Disney World (I don't know why one is one word and one is two, but they sound alike when spoken). --BDD (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You have just made a great point for the opposition. People talk about "Disney World" all the time without even realizing what it is. First off, Walt Disney World is not a park. It is a recreational resort with numerous theme parks, resort hotels, and other entertainment centers. Walt Disney World is not the Eastern counterpart to Disneyland, although you might say it is the Eastern counterpart to the Disneyland Resort. Had you had read my explanation above regarding the origins of its name, you might understand "why one is one word and one is two". And lastly, the two names and how "they sound alike when spoken" has absolutely nothing to do with this proposed page move. —Jclavet (Talk • Contributions) 03:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That is true ... in a lot of cases, "Disney World" is used to refer to the Magic Kingdom portion of the Walt Disney World complex. For example, someone may say, "We went to Epcot in the morning, then to Disney World for the fireworks". --McDoobAU93 03:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, that's fine. Your explanation is enlightening, and could fit very well into the article itself with WP:RS. But it's not relevant to the WP:COMMONNAME policy. I think if you want to oppose this request, you'll have to do one of two things: either argue that "Disney World" is not the common name for the resort, or argue in terms of another policy that can trump WP:COMMONNAME in this case. Reading over your comments, it sounds like you're arguing for the official name, but as you'll see from that page, official names are only relevant here when there's nothing else to go by. As Born2cycle pointed out, trying to suss out the right or wrong names here isn't the issue. Finally, this isn't a decision to be made based on how much we respect Walt Disney or what he called anything; that's just a complete red herring here. --BDD (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, but support Walt Disney World, without "Resort". This is what seems to be most common in sources, and seems more natural and recognizable to me. I agree that the full official name is not ideal, but I don't see any credible rationale to believe that plain Disney World is more appropriate per policy. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: as others have said the phrase Disney World can be misinterpreted as refering to the Magic Kingdom. Thus, an article titled as such would also be confusing. If the page is moved, "Walt Disney World" would be a much better alternative. Themeparkgc  Talk  07:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • We have a separate article for Magic Kingdom. There is no ambiguity issue to resolve with that topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• oppose Disney world is still somewhat ambiguous, and is often used to refer to just the theme park.--KarlB (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • In Misplaced Pages? If so, where? If not, what relevance does this ambiguity-outside-of-WP have to this WP RM discussion? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Walt Disney World → Walt Disney World Resort – Walt Disney World Resort is the official name of the complex; moving the page to Walt Disney World appeared to have much opposition. Disneyland is titled by its official name, Disneyland Resort. There was no need to have moved it in the first place, because the article had been named Walt Disney World Resort for a while. 75.130.102.69 (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Was just recently moved to this tittle and its common on Misplaced Pages to use the common name. In fact it's a guideline. JOJ 15:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the Pertinent things to take into account are the essay Misplaced Pages:Official names and the policy WP:COMMONNAME which shows that we don't use a name simply because it is official. The only other reason sated, the fact that the original name was used for a while, is not even remotely a strong enough reason to dismiss the recent consensus to change to the current name. In short, it's irrelevant.--70.49.83.129 (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per the last RM; see my comments there. The current title seems like a good one. Dicklyon (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe the nominator also misread the previous move discussion. The original proposal in that debate was to move the page to "Disney World". Many opposed that specific name, but suggested "Walt Disney World" as a compromise as a more common name. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactally, while some who did object wanted to keep the old title most of them did so because suggested that Walt Disney World was better than Disney World and specifically said that they accepted that name. In the end most user actually supported the current name.--70.49.83.129 (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose there was just a move to this name. As per WP:COMMONNAME, I oppose. TBrandley 17:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose but I support the current Walt Disney World title without "Resort," because locals and cast members refer the the Walt Disney World Resort as Walt Disney World, and in writing we abbreviate it as WDW not WDWR. I must note that many guests mistakenly refer to Magic Kingdom as Disney World, but I believe that the way these pages are redirected and referenced in their current form prevents any confusion.ihafez (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Note that we have an article at Disneyland Resort because Disneyland redirects to Disneyland Park. The ambiguity makes the shorter names undesirable; here there is no such ambiguity (except for the small number of people who refer to the Magic Kingdom as "Disney World", but that's rather secondary). Powers 00:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

AULANI

i don't understand why aulani resort is mentionned on the walt disney world complex, it's a particular restort nothing to do with it

(83.154.127.99 (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC))

I agree, doubly since it was in a list of on-site resorts. Since it and two other beach resorts are not on the WDW campus—or in the cause of Aulani, not even on the same continent—I've removed all three. —C.Fred (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ya beat me to it, Fred. Totally agree there's no reason to include any of the off-site DVC properties here. --McDoobAU93 15:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Union Campaign

Why is there no section on the union representation in Disney on this article?

This is a significant aspect of the workplace and certainly deserves mention at least, if not its own section KurtFF8 (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Lots of employers have union workers. What makes Walt Disney World unique in that respect? Some form of notability would be needed to merit inclusion of such information in the article. --McDoobAU93 16:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There have been various disputes with labor for example this http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1999-11-30/business/9911290266_1_walt-disney-disney-world-equity-association and this http://www.wdwforgrownups.com/category/tags/labor-dispute Disney World is a major part of Florida's prominence, so disputes with its own employees are significant historically and today KurtFF8 (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Lots of companies have had disputes with their labor unions. And I daresay that Florida itself would contest your statement that WDW is a "major part of Florida's prominence", since Florida had been a tourist destination and a desirable place to live and work for decades before Uncle Walt came to visit. Again, what makes a union dispute with Disney notable compared to other companies with similar issues? --McDoobAU93 16:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

KurtFF8 - is your concern that there is no discussion of Union on an encyclopedic Walt Disney World article, or that there is no talk of Disney on an article about Unions? No doubt that there are news articles about union/Disney relationships - the question is how does it fit in here as part of an encyclopedic entry on WDW vs elsewhere in WP? SpikeJones (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

McDoob, Yes I think that companies that have labor disputes should have those facts included as part of their history. I don't see why the building of a new building/new product line/etc is any more important to understanding the history of a company or workplace than labor disputes.

SpikeJones, my concern is essentially the above: there is a strange omission of labor disputes in the history of this park. I think that it is just as an important part of the history of Disney World as facts about property taxes and district zoning (which is present in the history section at the moment) KurtFF8 (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In all honesty, your desire to include this comes across more as POV-pushing than a desire to inform. Unless some significant event occurs (such as the closure of Eastern Airlines and Hostess Brands after strikes, or a major disruption in park activities that affects guests), it's just not that notable. --McDoobAU93 16:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

KurtFF8 - do you have an example of how other company/location/business pages incorporated information about union items into their articles? Do you have enough material to write a complete encyclopedic union-related article about Disney in entirety (rather than focused strictly on WDW)? I encourage you to look bigger in your goals of expanding the fact-based, notable, non-POV, reported by reputable third party, union-related info that is present already on WP rather than be concerned over a perceived missing sentence in this location. SpikeJones (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I will say that I don't have other articles in mind as an example, but my original point is that this article in question is quite descriptive of the history of the theme park attractions, building expansions, etc. For example, to include minor details of particular park expansions and not include something about the people who operate and built the said parks doesn't seem to make sense to me. It's not just a case of POV pushing, as there have been multiple newsworthy events when it comes to this question. And if anything, the "Employment" section should at least contain mention of the strong presence of a union, which in Florida makes it an exceptional workplace. KurtFF8 (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

How do you define "strong presence"? I have no issue with including mention that a number of the employees at the property are members of a union, and I agree that the "Employment" subhead would be the best place for it instead of its own separate section (per WP:UNDUE). How about giving us an idea of what you'd like the section to say here? --McDoobAU93 21:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I think that a new section wouldn't make sense considering there's an employment section. I was thinking at least adding a sentence or two that the employees are a part of a union and that there have been various disputes between the union and the company. KurtFF8 (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm cool with mentioning the presence of a union; go further and make sure the union is named and cited (of course). As to disputes, those are very common within any organization with a union workforce. Anything notable in that regard that would demand inclusion? For example, take a look at Delta Air Lines, a generally non-union company. There have been notable disputes that are mentioned in that article, but nothing saying that they occur. --McDoobAU93 15:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Change in Resorts

I changed the number of categories in resorts from five to four due to there only being 4 levels. Minor edit, of an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momentumlost (talk • contribs) 05:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Employment/outsourcing

Two items were added recently to the Employment section of the article, one saying many employees make minimum wage and are forced to live in nearby motels as there are apparently no shelters in the immediate area, and the other was a story about how employees were laid off, but after they had trained their foreign replacements. Both of these appear to be an attempt to link Disney to a hot button issue, and that is just one reason why they should be removed. The other reason these items were removed was because these additions do not represent a unique situation that is occurring just at Disney.

It's no secret that Disney hires a number of workers at minimum wage, as do many other businesses around the country for entry-level and minimum-skill positions, and I would also surmise that a number of them will find themselves without affordable housing. While unfortunate and in need of change, Disney's not alone and shouldn't be singled out. The same goes for the apparent trend of companies replacing IT workers with foreign replacements, after the soon-to-be-unemployed worker trains the new contract hires. This article appeared almost a year ago, and this story appeared over three years ago. Again, this isn't new, and there's no reason to single out Disney unless the intent is to shame them in a high-traffic article.

I would recommend that these edits be added into articles about the minimum wage and about H1-B visas, since these would be examples that would bolster the discussion of those subjects more than it would do so here, where the statements would be giving excessive coverage to something that affects many other companies besides Disney.

--McDoobAU93 03:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Disney articles
• Top-importance Disney articles
• B-Class Disney articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject Disney articles
• B-Class Florida articles
• High-importance Florida articles
• WikiProject Florida articles
• B-Class amusement park articles
• High-importance amusement park articles
• B-Class Walt Disney Parks and Resorts articles
• Top-importance Walt Disney Parks and Resorts articles
• Walt Disney Parks and Resorts articles
• Amusement park articles