Talk:Club 33/Archive 1

Untitled
This whole thing reads like a puff piece by a Disney ad exec. There's even a quote about what "Disney believes." Give me a break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.181.124 (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Animatronic Bird
Bloomberg News says the animatronic bird in the wood-paneled dining room is a California turkey vulture. DL77 12:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, L.A. Times report of June 21 describes it as a vulture rather than a condor. DL77 13:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Membership fees
Based on what the Disneyland Resort spokesman Bob Tucker told Kimi Yoshino of the L.A. Times, the initiation fee on the corporate level has increased $5,000 over what had been listed on Wikipedia and the corporate annual fee raised $100. The individual fees are the same as what was indicated in the Wikipedia article. Tucker didn't mention any other levels, however, nor a fee for associate members on the corporate level. DL77 13:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are currently no membership fees listed in the article. Is this intentional? --71.110.69.221 (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing, they dramatically increased the fees this year. And for another, there's really no publicly published document that can be used as a reference to support the information. Kdring (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Restaurants or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. You can find the related request for tagging here -- TinucherianBot (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement?
First of all I fail to see how an article on a private club with a closed membership list can be an advertisement. It's not as though this was written by someone working for Disney trying to recruit new members. They have more people waiting than will ever be able to become members. Second, if the majority of available non-hearsay information is from Disney press releases and such, wouldn't that naturally color the tone of the article? Until other legitimate sources are found, there's just no way to avoid that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdring (talk • contribs) 19:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I came to the talk page to see why the template was posted, and there isn't any explanation.  It doesn't read like an advert to me, although certainly there is little objective analysis.  But like Kdring said, what would you expect about a subject that's supposed to be "secret" or exclusive? I vote the template be removed.  Certainly the article needs citations, but that is not the same thing as being an advert. 71.200.140.35 (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been half a year since my first mention of this matter, and still no argument in favor of, or reasoning behind the flagging. If there's still nothing by next week, I'm removing the flag. Kdring (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't add it, but looking through the article, I'd say the "Membership" section is the most ad-like. It should probably be curtailed and toned down.  Yes, it doesn't tell you HOW to contact Disney, but is there any reason for saying anything besides that it's an invitation-only club?  Look at some of the membership benefits descriptions... I can see how someone might think that's ad-copy-like. Jclemens (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not invitation-only, but the Club did not solicit members as there was never a shortage of people willing to apply. Until last year, anyone could apply if they knew how. However, the wait list was completely shut down when it grew to well over ten years long. That said, I'm re-writing in an effort to make the article more neutral. Kdring (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)