Talk:Magic Kingdom/Archive 1

Title Here
Some topics to consider for inclusion in this article:

The concept of "hidden Mickeys" throughout the parks and resorts (is this covered in another article, and should merely be linked?)

Rumors, even unfounded ones -- for instance, I recently heard that since WDW has "governmental-type" powers (i.e. from the Reedy Creek Improvement District), that they have a (never publicized) policy of immediately transporting people outside the park after fatal accidents, heart attacks, et cetera... so that "no one dies at Disney".
 * If you're going to mention rumours of removing dying people from the park, please mention that the rumor is not true. http://www.snopes.com/disney/parks/declare.htm Thanks. --Amoore 01:33, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Article name
A few days ago, someone moved the article from Magic Kingdom to Magic Kingdom Park. I just moved it back. While it's true that the place is occasionally referred to as "Magic Kingdom Park", its much more common name (and the name which is more commonly used on disneyworld.com, as well) is simply "Magic Kingdom". - Brian Kendig 14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) OK


 * I agree. Same with Disneyland. Officially Disneyland Park, but no-one who doesn't work for Disney Corporate calls it that. But then again, this is an encyclopedia... and things should be their proper name... but nah, it works better this way. --Speedway 16:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agree, for the same reasons. This is supported by the "Use common names of persons and things" clause from Naming conventions. ManoaChild 21:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You won't find it on materials printed by Disney for the public... you'll find that all TV ADs, all 3rd Party materials, and all international material refers to the park as Magic Kingdom Park or Disneyland Park. I have called Disneyland 's Press Department and Walt Disney World's, and it is actually illegal to use the term "Magic Kingdom" or "Disneyland" without the word park (or Resort) on it in a publication that can be accessed outside the United States due to the trademark. That is the reason it is vital to rename the page. -Magicalbill


 * If "Magic Kingdom Park" is not on materials printed by Disney for the public, then that's further reason why the Wikipedia article should be named "Magic Kingdom". I understand that trademark law requires that trademarked names must be used as adjectives and not nouns (at least, I think this is the case), but we don't have articles named "Microsoft Windows operating system" or "Dodge Neon car". - Brian Kendig 16:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that even with that logic, it's hard to decide between Disneyland Park and Disneyland Resort and Disneyland Park in paris. When you type Disneyland, you should go to a "what did you mean" page... some people even wrongfully call Disneyland the park in Florida.  And some people wrongfully call the park in California the Magic Kingdom.  Before I do any more re-naming, I think we should decide upon the park naming scheme, and the rules for adding "Park" to the name.  Plus, times change.  Disney-MGM Studios' original name was the Disney-MGM Studios Theme Park... the words "Theme Park" were dropped in the mid 90's, as the public had already become familiar with the park, and the park's name isn't trademarked... hence why you'll never see it used outside the USA.  But Disneyland is trademarked, and it's not just one place.  It refers to so many, I think people will type in Disneyland and get more confused than if they typed in Disneyland Park.  I'd like to rename Disneyland to Disneyland Park. Then make Disneyland a "what did you mean" page with options for Disneyland Park, Disneyland Resort, Tokyo Disneyland Park, Tokyo Disneyland Resort, Disneyland Park in Paris, Hong Kong Disneyland Park, Hong Kong Disneyland Resort, Walt Disney World Resort and the Magic Kingdom Park in Florida.  Magic Kingdom should also be a "what did you mean? page" as some areas of Disneyland Park describe Disneyland Park as "a Magic Kingdom" and "Walt Disney's Magic Kingdom of Disneyland."  We could also include a history on the term "Magic Kingdom." Would that work for you guys?  At least you should understand my reasoning now, if nothing else. -Magicalbill
 * This just breaks a lot of wiki links for no real gain. There can always be a dab paragraph or a link to a dab page at the top of an existing page.  Regarding the trademark issues, it's only an issue if Disney makes it an issue, and there are so many pages out there with the incorrect name, that it's clearly a non-issue.  Really, the only time that any company cares about this issue is if their name is used in a generic sense, which is not happening here. ManoaChild 20:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Upon further thought, there probably is enough that should be said that a dab page should be created, both for "Magic Kingdom" and for "Disneyland". The existing material at the top of both pages would be moved there, and replaced by a link to the page. Any comments or objections? ManoaChild 21:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel I should point out that all the "magic kingdom" parks are named differently. California's is Disneyland. Florida: Magic Kingdom. Paris: Parc Disneyland. Tokyo: Tokyo Disneyland. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Disneyland. I dont think it's really necessary to go changing things just to have the word "park" on an article... KC. 02:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear what I was suggesting, I only want to move the first paragraph of both articles to separate pages, and then expand them slightly, to aid user navigation. I was not supporting the idea of renaming the articles or making any other changes to the existing articles. ManoaChild 02:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind a short dab paragraph at the top of Disneyland and Magic Kingdom to help readers who may have ended up at those articles unintentionally. But I object to the idea of these two articles becoming only dab pages themselves, because these are the correct, proper, and most common names of the parks in question. Turning them into dab pages would mean that anyone who correctly knows what Disneyland or the Magic Kingdom are would have to go through an extra link before finding the article he wants. - Brian Kendig 04:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. I feel that is the best approach. BTW ManoaChild, it is known as Parc Disneyland around the resort in signage on roads etc, and only there. Publicly it is known as Disneyland Park, in logos, brochures, etc. Just to confirm the offical, recognised names by The Walt Disney Company and/or Euro Disney SCA and/or The Oriental Land Company;

I certainly feel adding Park onto the names of Disneyland, Magic Kingdom and Tokyo Disneyland is unnecessary. If anyone feels the need to make this clear to Wikipedia users, it is to be mentioned in the articles - it already is in the Disneyland article. Any readers with common sense looking for Disneyland Paris but by typing in Disneyland coming to the Disneyland page, would look at the menu and see Disneylands around the world: this would lead to a link to Disneyland Paris (sorry, Disneyland Park (Paris). --Speedway 16:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Disneyland Park, page name on Wikipedia: Disneyland, resort: Disneyland Resort
 * Magic Kingdom Park, page name on Wikipedia: Magic Kingdom, resort: Walt Disney World Resort
 * Tokyo Disneyland Park, page name on Wikipedia: Tokyo Disneyland, resort: Tokyo Disney Resort
 * Disneyland Park, page name on Wikipedia: Disneyland Park (Paris), resort: Disneyland Resort Paris
 * Hong Kong Disneyland (no Park), page name on Wikipedia: Hong Kong Disneyland, resort: Hong Kong Disneyland Resort
 * Please note, I wasn't the one who used "Parc Disneyland". It was KC.. ManoaChild 21:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving to subpages?
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)

Legend of the Lion King page
Should there be one?

The Legend of the Lion King is closed, so that would be silly. yeah that is really stupid
 * I see no reason why not, if there's enough relevant information about the attraction to warrant it. Mearnhardtfan 02:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Tomorrowland
Before I add my edits back. I'll open it up here. But I added to the entry today for Tomorrowland which pointed that in the 1990's that part of the park was imagained as "The Tomorrow that never was." This was a major change in how Tomorrowland was envisioned and a departure from Walt's original statment, which is all that is listed under the Tomorrowland section. Anyone else out there have feelings one way or another on this? Arwen4014 22:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed it as that info should be placed in the Tomorrowland article. The Tomorrowland information included here is strictly to indicate that Tomorrowland is part of the MK, and anyone wanting more information should proceed to the next article.  (the detailed information on each land were moved to their separate articles earlier.  Moving the Tomorrowland information there is consistent with that.) SpikeJones 13:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Disney Christmas Parade Song Query
I've also made a post on the Andrea Bocelli Talk Page, but in case no one there can help me, hopefully someone here will be able to: Earlier today ABC was broadcasting the Disney World Christmas Parade. Perhaps an hour into the broadcast (I'm not exactly sure about the time), a song was sung by the Italian singer Andrea Bocelli. When I started watching, they had already said what he was singing, so I missed it. Does anyone happen to know what song it was that he was singing? I'm assuming that it was a song from his newest album, Amore, but I could be wrong. Answerthis 00:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Tag
Since someone tagged this article with a too much trivia tag, I tried to get rid of all the trivia and made a section on the history of the park with some references, and put half of the trivia points in it. Also I moved the others to a see also section with categories and a short explanation of how each relate to the Magic Kingdom. If anyone has a problem with my edits feel free to fix them and discuss. Phydend 04:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

photos in article
obviously, this article will have people adding their favorite MK photo in, just because they can. There is no need, for example, for two photos of Main Street here. I prefer the crisper look of one, but the atmosphere of the other. Anyone have an opinion on whether a gallery would be better suited here than inline photos (and which of the two Main Street photos should be axed)? SpikeJones 17:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Magic Kingdom: Walt Disney and the American Way of Life (book)
I added a link to The Magic Kingdom: Walt Disney and the American Way of Life (book) to de-orphan it, because this seemed to be a reasonable place for it. If it needs to be removed, that is all right with me. Maybe someone can find better places to link to it. Anyway, it has a relatively low priority for me. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ''Transcribed from a similar discussion at Talk:The Walt Disney Company, for those who follow this article but not the other ...


 * Adding a link simply to justify removal of an orphaned-article tag brings up some questions of notability on the work. First, has anyone read the book to see if it has any useful information we could add to any of the Disney articles? Second, is the work notable enough to have its own article? In my opinion, adding a link solely for the purpose of giving it something to link to is the Wikipedia equivalent of Paris Hilton ... that said, anyone have this book? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Walt Disney Takes You to Disneyland: A Musical Tour of the Magic Kingdom
Would it be good to add a link to the orphaned article Walt Disney Takes You to Disneyland: A Musical Tour of the Magic Kingdom? -- Wavelength (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to this page. SpikeJones (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)