Talk:Disney Interactive

Self-promotion?
I'm new to this, so please excuse the improper formatting.

This seems like self-promotion to me: "Already the number one online destination for children and parents, DIMG pushed the envelope in utilizing the latest technologies to offer a highly interactive experience for people of all ages."

Maybe preface with "Disney claims..."?

--Drewmutt (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-promotion? The DIVISION section is pure company PR-propaganda:

"Disney Interactive Studios creates (...) award-winning, innovative interactive games (...) Guided by an unwavering commitment to safety and creativity, Disney Online Studios' virtual worlds offer (...) endless hours of online fun in rich, story-based environments (...) Disney Mobile creates new entertainment experiences that tap into the exploding popularity and unique functionality of smart phones (and) offers an unparalleled line-up of high-quality, popular mobile entertainment content (...)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.88.24.50 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 April 2012


 * Yes agreed, I've severely pruned it. You should have tagged it with advert to bring it to editors attention. A pretty bad case of WP:ADVERT and WP:PEACOCK.  The fact taht nobody has else has noticed since the article was created is a sign that nobody reads the page and it is probably not very notable.  perhaps a redirect to Disney Interactive Studios would be more useful.  Spinning  Spark  09:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know - I didn't write any of the original copy so I hope I have not jeoparized my position by having this removed. I will talk to our PR dept. Can we have the notice at the top removed? I have put a short summary of our family sites. Thank you for your help and understanding as I am new here in this space and will be sure I am in the sandbox. DIMG (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I had already reverted your edits before you posted. There is no way that wording like "...a leading group of sites that provide inspiration and ideas for parents on a variety of topics important to today's families" is suitable text for an encyclopedia.  Besides which, adding a sixth section after saying there are five divisions makes the article read like nonsense.  The PR department (of any company) are probably the very last people who should be writing anything here as they will find it very difficult to write in a factual and neutral tone.  I suggest that you read the  conflict of interest guideline and restrict yourself to making suggestions only on the talk page.  You can attract the attention of an editor with the request edit template.  :The notices at the top of the page are to draw attention to the fact that the majority of the article is unsourced, as required by our verifiability policy.  Since no reliable sources have been added, then no, they cannot be removed.  Spinning  Spark  18:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have removed "leading" and have added advert to bring to the editor's attention. I don't know who wrote the the original copy, but can I get the original so I can forward and have them revise so it's not self promoting?

DIMG (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That is still promotional wording. It has already been reverted by another editor.  I strongly suggest you pause from editing the article for the moment.  Spinning  Spark  19:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Disney Interactive Media Group (DIMG) has been renamed to Disney Interactive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.108.162 (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I just pruned some outdated content from the article. The bit I removed said that this division provides technical services to other Disney business units. Basically, the technical services group to which the article referred used to be a part of DIMG, but about a year or two ago, that group moved out of DIMG and is now under the Disney Corporate umbrella. Source: I work for the technical services group in question. I realize that's not a valid source, so I didn't include that information in the article. Besides being incorrect, the information that I removed was uncited as well, which is my official justification for removing it. 67.161.126.118 (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Technical requests

 * Disney Interactive Media Group → Disney Interactive ([ move]) – Name of division was changed to Disney Interactive May 2012 Jeff (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Jeff (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I moved this content to Disney Interactive. The latest name of the division.Jeff (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * However you seperated the article its history in the way you move the article via cut & paste. It has thus been reversed. Spshu (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Disney Interactive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130225175820/http://www.businessweek.com:80/ap/2013-01-15/disney-unveils-own-skylanders-like-franchise to http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-01-15/disney-unveils-own-skylanders-like-franchise

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Source

 * 1997 NewMedia magazine profile