Talk:Hidden Mickey

Count?

I'm removing the line that says there are a total of 24 known hidden mickeys since there are quite a bit more than just 24. (The list here alone contains 25 at the time of my writing this:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.190.86.211 (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

Well... I think that it would be a good idea to merge the Hidden Mickey 50 yrs article into this one. They're very similar, and because the Hidden Mickeys in Disneyland have been taken down, it needs to be part of another article as history now. It has no importance as an independant article.

Power Macintosh G3

The Apple Power Macintosh G3 (Blue & White) computer has what certainly looks like a "Hidden Mickey" on the side panel, where the "bite" of the Apple logo and the inner curve of the "3" of "G3" meet, as shown in this image:

http://eshop.macsales.com/Customized_Pages/Accelerators/images/logix_bw.jpg

A coincidence? --FOo 07:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Steve Jobs did start Pixar as well as Apple. Also an Apple designer designed Eve on the Disney film Wall-e. I would say this is plausible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.110.225.15 (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The Lion King 1/2

The Lion King 1/2 DVD has a "Hidden Mickey hunt" section where you watch the entire movie while trying to find Hidden Mickeys. - NES Boy 00:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone found all the Hidden Mickeys? If so, please post a list of hints on where they are.

It's Impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.208.152 (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

'Tron' listed twice

Tron was listed twice in the list of movies with Hidden Mickeys. I took out the 2nd link. If there was a reason for the 2x listing, please change it back. Just letting you know. 68.121.145.107 23:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Hidden Mickey in the original TRON is easily visible as one of the plateaus in the "landscape" the Solar Sailer travels over. Bizzybody (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

No Mickey in the Incredibles

I watched the scene in the Pixar movie 'The Incredibles' that supposedly contains a Mickey (52:52 in the cave). A stalactite bisecting the arch of the cave does give the appearance of two circles, it's hardly a clear Mickey. More importantly, given bitter relationship beween Pixar and Disney during the time the film was being made, I hardly think that any of the Pixar animators would want to give such a nod to the mouse.

There is, in fact, plenty of Mickeys in Incredibles.. http://www.hiddenmickeyguy.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/Hidden_Mickey_Gallery_Preview/mickey-images/the_incredibles_mickey_9386.jpg http://www.hiddenmickeyguy.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/Hidden_Mickey_Gallery_Preview/mickey-images/the_incredibles_mickey_9386.jpg http://www.hiddenmickeyguy.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/Hidden_Mickey_Gallery_Preview/mickey-images/the_incredibles_020_medium_8983.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.5.27 (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Citation & Refocus

While providing proper references or citations for these hidden mickeys, does anyone have a good suggestion on how to actually go about this task? What would be the best way to "cite" these? Perhaps a better idea would be to refocus the article on what a hidden mickey is, and provide a few, select examples. There is no need to recreate what many websites exist to document. Your thoughts? Might I be so WP:BRD to implement this next week? Tiggerjay (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree. Some of the hidden mickeys listed are questionable, to say the least, and listing so many seems a little trivial. I think it would be more appropriate to reformat it in the way you've proposed and possibly provide a link to a single reliable site dedicated to the documentation of hidden mickeys. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the list is totally unnecessary, as is the article itself. But if this article were to stay, there should be a distinction between intentional (purposefully put in an attraction by an imagineer, for example) versus unintentional (such as shown in the picture with the moss on the rock -- that is nature's doing and is therefore not "hidden"). Cactusjump (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this article is not worthy of Wikipedia. I was startled to see it. It states that all Disney films have 'hidden mickies' in them as if this is a fact. It seems the creation of a strong imagination at best. I came to it through an article on the biology of Lichens, where it is linked. At least qualify the article by saying something like "it has been arugued that HMs are found....". But really such speculation has no place in an encyclopedia, surely?Spanglej (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hidden Mickey List

Lists of hidden Mickeys are probably not appropriate for wikipedia. Listing a couple major example in prose would be fine, but big lists should be avoided as they tend to attract additions and accumulate. --Lendorien (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The list is exhaustive and unnecessary. It seems that the "Examples" listed are prompting people to come to this discussion page and add the ones not listed. Should we delete? Cactusjump (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted and cleaned up article. Cactusjump (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Split

The bit on the novel should be split out into its own article, if reliable sources can be found to establish notability. (If not, then it should be pared down and moved to the end of this article.) Powers ^T 14:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I will make it a new sub-title, just after 'Locations', and before 'see also'. --Rrodrigue (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted with no discussion, this does not seem to be within the range of what was discussed. Since you feel the bit on the novel should be split into it's own article, did you do this? If so I cannot find it. I am new to this format and have never started an article, so can you assist? I also noticed the link is gone, again no discussion was had. I went back and added the novel as a secondary description, and I kept it as short as possible. Hopefully you will agree on this change, but if you want it in it's own article please help me build it properly. --Rrodrigue (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The history page is your friend. If you review the history of the article (here) you will see what happened. I did not split the bit on the novel out into a new article; a non-logged-in user removed the section. The part you added back is significantly shorter than what was removed; you may want to fill it back out. Powers ^T 15:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I put it back similar to how it was, except in a sub-category like you saw it. I actually think it is more appropriate now with a reference to the authors. I would like to eventually build a page for the authors rather than an external link. Thank You, I appreciate the assistance.--Rrodrigue (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The mention of the book is off-topic in this article. If it is notable enough to warrant its own article, a hatnote could be placed in this article to point to the article about the book, after it is created.

The external link is not appropriate here since it does not provide information about the subject of this article, and also because that web page primarily exists to sell that book (see WP:ELNO).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain it's off-topic. It's not like it's completely unrelated to the topic; it's named after the phenomenon and incorporates it into the plot. Powers ^T 13:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I put the page back the way it was, because the very title of the book shows it is not off-topic. I also put the link back, but pointed it to the authors page, just as it was when this section was first added. This link exists only to reference the authors and does not exist to sell the book (again see WP:ELNO). --Rrodrigue (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I just removed the section about the novel and the external link to the novel's website. It's true that the novel is titled "Hidden Mickey" and involves hidden mickeys in the plot, but the whole text was, IMHO, purely a promotional pitch and plot description and doesn't contribute to the understanding of hidden mickeys in the article. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I just undid the deleted section and external link. I agree the language may have appeared to promote, but no more so that the other hidden mickey titles described. I ammended the language to explain plot, removing what may appear to some to promote. This novel is just as relevant as the other hidden mickey publications described herein. The external link is not a promotion, it appears to link to the authors page, which is relevant to the novel and subject hidden mickey (see WP:ELNO). --Rrodrigue (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The other external links are lists of hidden mickeys and discussions of hidden mickeys -- usable as sources. The novel "Hidden Mickey" is neither of those. Furthermore, why is the plot explained at all? The plot of the book has no relation to the article at all. I won't take the link out again, but it's presence in the article needs to be smaller. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've just changed my mind, User:Rrodrigue, since the authors of the book are Dave Smith and Nancy Temple Rodrigue. There's an obvious conflict of interest situation here, and given that hidden mickey seem to have only a tangitail appliction to the novel, and that the text yoiui left is practically a "purchase me now" blurb, I'm going to remove the link. Please read up on conflict of interest in Wikipedia before thinking about reinserting. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Undid the delete by User:ArglebargleIV since the comments made are opinionated at best. The plot is lightly explained to show the relevance to the wiki title Hidden Mickey. The link is simply info on the authors, with absolutely no reference to "purchase me now", the other links on the page however are full of "purchase me now" buttons. Also, there is no conflict of interest on this end. --Rrodrigue (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem that I corrected, the Novel sub-category was deleted since it was redundant with a Books sub-category. The text was adjusted to depict it's relevance to the title, the short synposis was adjusted with the proper internal links. The external link was adjusted similar to the Steve Barrett links. --Disneytree (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Books

I wrote a 2009 book about Hidden Mickeys in Disneyland (Amazon listing). Obviously, I'm not going to add it to the article per WP:COI, but if someone else feels that it would be a valuable addition, I'd be happy to provide any additional information necessary. --Alan Joyce (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Totem pole image

Is there really a Hidden Mickey in File:Hidden mickey totem pole.jpg? I'm finding it hard to see one, which suggests it may not be a very illustrative image (or at least needs a clearer caption). --McGeddon (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I can't see a hidden mickey ni the totem pole image either... --Zeldajiggmin (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2011 (EST)

It's a black Mickey head directly below the arm and straight red band, just to the lower right of center of the image. Bizzybody (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

History

I just removed this strange paragraph from the History section. Leaving it here in case it's of any use to anyone. The reference link at the end is a 404 btw.

Hidden Mickeys started out as inside jokes among the Disney Imagineers. The Disney official history goes like this: Hidden Mickeys started in the late 1980’s in Epcot as an inside joke among the Imagineers. Hiding Mickey around WDW was just plain fun! However, Jim Hill (jimhillmedia.com) believes in this "unofficial history": Hidden Mickeys were born as the Imagineers were designing Epcot in the late 1970's and early 1980's. At that time, Disney management felt that the characters belonged in the Magic Kingdom only. The Imagineers disagreed and began slipping Mickeys into Epcot! I suspect that Mickey Mouse designs that were previously in place in WDW (and Disneyland) also became known as Hidden Mickeys. Because of the popularity of HM’s, Imagineers are encouraged to place them in new construction.

Denbosch (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence you removed had been in the article for quite some time; the rest was a very recent addition and I agree poorly written. Powers ^T 18:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

References

File:Disney Shotglass.jpeg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Disney Shotglass.jpeg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose that Hidden Mickey 50 Ears be merged into Hidden Mickey. I think that the content in the 50 Ears article can easily be explained in the context of Hidden Mickey, and the Hidden Mickey article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Hidden Mickey 50 Ears will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. FirstDrop87 (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

What about Versailles?

Search on Goggle with : Versailles and "Mickey Mouse" They are not three circles, however it is very similar!

--79.54.115.160 (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC) (Anonimous)

This visual illusion is not notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Although this is neat, any similarity in nature or architecture to a hidden mickey should not be included.FirstDrop87 (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hidden Mickey. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://attractionsmagazine.com/blog/2011/09/01/author-documents-1000th-hidden-mickey-fifth-edition-on-sale/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hidden Mickey. 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/20090220171407/http://hiddenmickeys.org/WhatIs.html to http://www.hiddenmickeys.org/WhatIs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)