Talk:Disney on Ice

Sales pitch
This article needs to be cleaned up to become more neutral. Sentences such as "featuring all your favorite Disney music" sound like a sales pitch than an objective presentation of facts. -- unsigned comment by Special:Contributions/99.255.9.241

Why 100 years
Why is it 100 years of Magic. That is inaccurate both now and in 1999 when the piece was debuted. The best I can think of is 1901 being when Walt was born.--TimothyJacobson (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You are indeed correct, it was related to the 100th birthday of Walt Disney, not something to do with the ice shows themselves (which only debuted in the early 80s)

Lord of Haha (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Regional variations
The shows have regional varitions. For example I was talking with the crew of 100 Years of Magic and was told Disney traditional hand drawn animation is more popular in Japan than modern Pixar computer generated films, so the Incredibles section of the show was replaced with a segment featuring Lilo & Stitch.

How can we account for regional variations? Some editors will mistakenly add films to the list when the characters appear only briefly as part of the group without actually getting their own story segment. Other editors will make drive-by changes in good faith based on the version of the show they actually saw in their area. This further complicates the difficult task of trying to WP:VERIFY anything in this article. -- Horkana (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I was on 100 Years of Magic for a while, the Lilo & Stitch element was a rare aspect - often any variations that get picked up along the way - stay. For example the Lilo & Stitch element you are talking about lived on for a while, and made its way to Mexico too. While many other changes allow for some changes that occur over time (ie: Mickey & Minnie's Magical Journey has had a few stories added/removed in the past 4 years)


 * As for a "knowing" if its a regional variation or not, I think it's near impossible to verify - simply because any way to verify this would be internal knowledge which is more or less impossible to quote.
 * Epistemophiliac (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that a lot of the show listings give undue weight to characters that only appear briefly. I suppose all I can do is ask those who are more familiar with the show to try and keep the article from becoming too misleading where it overemphasizes minor characters that do not really get their own story section. -- Horkana (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture
A section "In popular culture" was added to the article. I'm concerned that the items are not particularly WP:NOTABLE, ideally they should have references such as reviews noting the connection. That leads to my next concern that the Reptar on Ice reference is just a general reference to any "on Ice" show (e.g. Barney on Ice) and not necessarily Disney on Ice. So far at least, the items do have links to the specific episodes they are talking about, but this section needs avoid turning into a miscellaneous list of WP:TRIVIA. -- Horkana (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Introduction
Should Europe and Asia be included in "non-traditional skating regions"? That whole sentence needs to be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.216.133.42 (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

multiple unsourced articles
I've seen unsourced articles but this topic is an entire unsourced category... Category:Disney on Ice with not a single reliable source cited in any of them. Wow. 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:4D5 (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

it should show information about the closed shows
that is useful for people that want to find information about past shows.84.212.73.96 (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Promotional
Most of the material in this article is apparently an attempt to make the page a program guide to Disney on Ice productions. Wikipedia is not a program guide. The article is also littered with non-encyclopedic, unsourced material, likely from original research and/or primary sources. Solving the second problem will solve the first. Wikipedia articles are meant to report what independent reliable sources have to say about a subject. Very little of the article should come from primary sources: press releases, ads and the like. The tiny bits of information that might be taken from such sources are simple, non-controversial facts: year of founding and such. It also seems that a lot of edits are being made by people with undisclosed connections to one or more of the shows. I imagine they won't take too kindly to the changes that need to be made here. Hopefully they'll be willing to discuss issues and respect that Wikipedia has its goals and that those might not be the same as those of individuals connected to the shows. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * A lot of this is also very difficult to verify. How do we know that "in 2011, Toy Story 3 replaced the Lion King and in 2015, Frozen replaced Tinker Bell"? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Removing shows
I am removing the shows/list of characters/etc. Most of them are completely unsourced and, AFAICT, trivial. There are a few pseudo-sources scattered throughout. Until I have a chance to look through them for anything we might be able to use, I am listing those sources here.

- Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * & . This is not promotional as it is not "puffery". The different shows are equivalent to TV series episodes. There are tables/list and list articles for the episodes by the ton as there is even a Category for them (Category:Lists of television series episodes). The article does not contain list of when and where Disney on Ice is being shown, that would be a guide. Not of schedule information was in this version to which you repeat these objections in Summer's removal on 12:52, 5 April 2017‎. Spshu (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a TV show. Independent reliable sources do not interview the "stars", list the cast and summarize the episodes.
 * I'm not really sure what a "schedule of information" is, but it sure sounds like a guide to me. A well known schedule of TV information is TV Guide. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not say this was a TV show, but the sub-shows (or what ever you want to ID by) are similar to episodes. Please under stand equivalent. "schedule of information" is not there, try "schedule information", which like you surmised, is TV guide. Which wasn't there. The list consisted of the shows under the Disney on Ice "banner". So, since the TV guide information is not there, your conclusion is "but it sure sounds like a guide to me." Really, are there any show dates, times and locations? No there were no such information. Yet, you still came after it as a "guide". Spshu (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that you're responding to a discussion from over a year ago? Fine if you are, but it's a little out of the blue. Puffery is not the only way something can be considered promotional. If it looks like Wikipedia is being used as an extension of the Disney on Ice website, I would absolutely consider that promotional per WP:PROMO #5: "Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts." It's no different than when a manufacturing company tries to list all of their product lines in an article about themselves. We are not a brochure, we are an encyclopedia. Anyway, This was probably the version of the article that I was talking about when I wrote the post. If you want to discuss that version of the article, I'm happy to. It's almost entirely unsourced and presents extreme difficulty to verify, and at the time I felt it came off as promotional, particularly the breakdown of the upcoming shows. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it was used in April of this year by SummerPhDv2.0 as the reason ("Still not a program guide. See talk: "Promotional".") to remove the separate shows list. I though it might be "out of the blue", hence the ping, since was my usual fully sourcing self then to come back and have it hack out of the article for what I assumed was within "bounds". I can read PROMO. Duh, we are an encyclopedia. They cannot exactly sell you tickets to prior non-active shows now can they as that would promotions are for. I total sourced my material. At the level that the two of you are applying it to, as I pointed out above, you would then have fun going around to each TV show's articles stripping them of plot and episode information (breakdown of the upcoming shows) if this is just an extension of their websites or social media. Where TV episodes can be seen over and over again, while once a ice show is gone, it is gone (unless some one records one). Spshu (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Plot and episode detail of broadcast television series are far more likely to be of lasting social import and academic interest than a largely-unsourced program list of an ice skating show featuring performers that are kept in the shadows. There is, after all a Museum of Television and Radio, but no Museum of Themed Ice Skating Shows. (Obviously, I say this for the sake of levity.) That said, I don't particularly find this version to be as obnoxious as the version I linked to above, except for the misuse of boldface. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.feldentertainment.com/Shows/DisneyOnIce/, https://www.feldentertainment.com/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)