Talk:List of incidents at Disneyland Resort

Twilight Zone Tower of Terror: allow first-hand account?

CFred refuses to allow the victim of the riot that occurred at the Tower of Terror on 18 Feb 2012 to post facts. He cites a CBS news story that does NOT include all the information, and includes inflammatory language. The man in question was attacked by the Disney security guard and members of a beer swilling mob that the guard had allowed to gather. The man was also a 100% disabled veteran, carrying a handicapped pass issued by Disneyland. He was also suffering from a concussion incurred a week before the incident. How can this NOT be part of the article? Is this page merely acting as a shill for Disneyland?Victor5812 (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Or should the article instead follow Wikipedia guidelines like WP:Reliable sources, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Neutral point of view—and stick with the account of the incident as reported by the media (a reliable source) rather than a (alleged) first-hand account of the event? —C.Fred (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This text was posted at Talk:Incidents at Disney parks; I have copied it here. —C.Fred (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The only information that will enter the article will be from verifiable independent sources. With no proof of the eye-witness' identity, that fails verifiability. Even if there was proof, what was posted would be considered original research and still not admissible. --McDoobAU93 19:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Redundancy

There's no need to add the word "teen" after stating a teen's age. So far, I've found "17-year-old teen" "18-year-old teen" and "19-year-old teen". Simply deleting the word "teen" in these sentences would greatly improve this article.

Doubledragons (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Duckhead incident

Can you add in the duckhead incident in the Rivers of America in the "A Cast of Characters" chapter from the Mouse Tales by David Koenig book that is a reference. GoBYU! (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In the all-too-likely event that an editor doesn't have that book, would you care to inform us as to the nature of this incident? --McDoobAU93 00:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A cast-member who worked at the Davy Crockett's Explorer Canoes was hitting ducks with a paddle and decapitated the head of a duck, the head went flying at a family having lunch in Bear Country. GoBYU! (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

From the article lead: The term incidents refers to major accidents, injuries, deaths and significant crimes. I do not believe this incident falls into any of those categories. --McDoobAU93 01:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There is also an account of a 3rd incident on the PeopleMover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoBYU! (talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, please make the presumption that the other editors who follow this article do not have the work you're using. Please provide additional details and we'll be glad to work it out. That said, you can always be bold and add it, but it may well get reverted if it doesn't fit the criteria mentioned above, at which point you would return here to discuss why you believe it should be added. For more details on this process, please read this section. --McDoobAU93 02:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Four teenagers were riding People mover when teenager #1 lost her mouse ears, both teenagers jumped onto the track to retrieve them. They realized they'd have to get on a different people mover cart. Teenager #1 successfully got into a cart. Teenager #2 ran through a tunnel and out the exit and then fell into a guard rail and onto the concrete 30 feet below. She broke an arm, hip, and pelvis. GoBYU! (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a possibly notable entry, but you'll need to add full citation information to include it, not just post it and expect users to come back to the talk page to see where it came from. I would recommend using Template:Cite book for this one. --McDoobAU93 18:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done 71.219.89.83 (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

no injuries in toontown

posted section for now, but may end up being non-notable. Still too early in news gathering cycle to know for sure. SpikeJones (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

And as more news comes out (ie the accused is a cast member) seems a bit more notable than originally indicated SpikeJones (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Regulation?

There does not seem to be any coverage of what government agencies, if any, regulate health and safety at fixed-location theme parks. If there is coverage elsewhere in Wikipedia, it's not pointed to very clearly from this article. There is some mention of the topic at [1], but this is probably not a definitive source of information on the subject. Can anybody add useful information? Reify-tech (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a summary article, not a discussion of what happens after an incident occurs. That said, because this particular summary article involves only one resort complex in one state, I think it'd be OK to mention something about CalOSHA having oversight over workplace incidents, for instance. --McDoobAU93 22:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Suicides at the Mickey & Friends Parking Structure

While researching a short story, I came across an article in the Orange County Register reporting a suicide at the Mickey And Friends Parking Structure, in 2012, and the article made reference to an earlier suicide in 2010. Though not a main draw, I think the parking structure is indeed part of Disneyland Resort, and these deaths should be reflected in the article.

I also notice that there are no accounts of any mishaps at the three resort hotels or Downtown Disney. Has there been none worthy of this article, or is this an oversight? ZenMondo (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Matterhorn cast member injury

I removed the 2014 slip and fall injury because it was of such a minor nature that it wasn't relevant to the article or even noteworthy. Minor injuries are not the intent of this wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.180.114 (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Aladdin musical spectacular carpet accident?

What about the carpet accident that occurred during the 4:45 p.m. show of Aladdin musical spectacular at the Hyperion Theater on Sunday, September 25, 2011? Here are the sources: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/09/magic-carpet-aladdin-disney-california-adventure.html http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/09/26/aladdin-carpet-flips-over-in-mid-air-at-california-adventure-no-injuries/ No injuries were reported as the carpet had to be taken out of the show; the new, modified carpet was installed on March 17, 2013. AkiStuart (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Why?

Am I now seeing false ages and information by anons (eg. 0-year old on one part and 100-year old on another)? (I am hesitating to login right now) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.193.205 (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Measles?

Worthwhile to list under Guest Altercations? It's becoming a bit more newsy, but isn't specific to a PARK issue other than DL being considered "ground zero" for the recent infection spread. Thoughts? SpikeJones (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It is an internationally reported incident centred on this park, omitting it would cause a "WTF?" reaction in the reader since it is probably the most widely reported of all the listed incidents, and has even led to a change in the law. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Read, WP:NOTNEWS. This is something that has very little to do with Disneyland at all. There is no safety violation with Disney, nor is there something a guest or employee did that created an incident. This basically has nothing to do with Disney at all, except the setting. Now if there was an outbreak that was caused by something Disney did, then that would be different, but it has nothing to do with the park or its operation, at all.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the incident is notable, since all evidence points to the park as being the main transmission point for the outbreak. That said, it certainly needs to be culled down to focus more on how many people were affected and less on connections to the anti-vax movement in California. It also does not prompt a change to the lede to include "disease outbreaks". --McDoobAU93 23:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

But how is the park responsible? Shouldn't the focus of this article reflect only the incidents that either, resulted in death or major injury, or came about through negligence of the park or its employees? Other than this being associated with the park based on location, this outbreak had nothing to do with Disney at all. They didn't cause it. None of the guests caused it while in the park. Its like we are classifying this as a Disney "incident" when it really isn't at all.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is a Disney incident. It doesn't have to be the fault of the venue to be included. It is a notable event which as JzG pointed out caused a change in Californian state law (SB277). The fact that the infection originated from Disneyland can not be ignored and should be included for this reason alone. It was a major public health incident, which if one wanted to be technical would qualify as a major injury as such - given what measles can do to a child. Curse of Fenric (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

JoJ keeps removing the measles outbreak. Given that this has more media coverage than all the other incidents combined, and has prompted a change in the law which is itself extremely widely covered and references this specific incident in much of the coverage, the claim of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM seems to me to be specious. It might apply to most of the incidents listed, but definitely not to this one, whihc has already had a lasting effect well beyond the park itself. Guy (Help!) 07:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Well looks like the majority has spoken. No point in even making a case anymore. Too bad too. This was once a decent article. --JOJ ^Hutton 10:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a decent article and your attempts to argue the removal of this smacks of anti vaccine conduct TBH and trying to hide the truth of why California now has a new law. It doesn't matter if Disneyland was actually responsible for it or not. The fact is that a major public health scare that caused a law change started at Disneyland. This is demonstrable fact and you can't change that. Curse of Fenric (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA. That was uncalled for. No fucking seriously. That was very uncalled for. You do not know my motives. I don't care about the law. The focus was on Disneyland and the incidents involved at the park. But now I have a greater understanding of why there is so much opposition to removing this. We need to not use Wikipedia articles for activism. JOJ ^Hutton 20:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Why else would you want to remove important information like this? Your removal of it is the activism, not it's retention. This was an incident that began at the park. Fact. Curse of Fenric (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

And once again you continue on with the personal attacks on my character and motive. Seriously, stick to the subject please. My only concern is what is in this article. As a semi-active editor on this article and other Disney related articles, myself and a few others have spent years weeding out the mischief than can sometimes get added to an article such as this. The scope of the article has been to only add information that is related to the Disney park and its operation. Such as accidents on rides, notable deaths, and anything else that may pertain to the park's operations. The scope should not be to add some indiscriminate information about some random measles outbreak that has absolutely nothing to do with the Park and isn't Disney's fault. This is something that could have happened anywhere. It just so happened to happen at Disneyland. There is no relation to the outbreak and the park at all. This was never what this article was intended to be about. Again, too bad, it was once a decent article.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Four words. I don't believe you. This pertains to the park's operations. This is not indiscriminate information, nor was it just a random outbreak (if it was it wouldn't have caused a law change). Further, it includes incidents that were the guest's fault as well as the park's. I can not believe that you would not see this - and as I said there is no other explanation for your editing conduct here. One more thing - a measles outbreak on the scale of this definitely qualifies as a major injury and could cause death. How dare you try and ignore the significance of this. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. Show your evidence or stay on topic. Your attempt at trying to discredit my motive has failed since I have over 100 main space edits to this article, Disneyland, and Disney California Adventure combined. Add in all of the related article and talk page edits and its clear that I am an active editor to these articles and I am not just editing this article because I have "anti vaccine conduct" or I am "trying to hide the truth of why California now has a new law", (Your Words). Either stay on topic please, or I will be forced to make a report for making personal attacks. You have already been warned on your talk page, so any more attacks will mean that you decided to ignore the warning.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jojhutton on this one. Curse of Fenric is assuming bad faith on Joj's part, and unless Curse can point out specific edits or patterns that would support their accusation, it needs to end. By all means, we should be discussing the content itself. I think it's warranted and is notable as noted earlier in this thread, but I also think it should be trimmed down. --McDoobAU93 16:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking about the trim down myself. There is a lot in that section has nothing at all to do with Disneyland. At first the section says that 40 people were visitors of Disneyland, then moves on to say that 57 people had not had a vaccination. That's considerably more than 40. So basically the section has a lot in it that has nothing to do with the park at all. I would have trimmed it down already but I was afraid that it would be seen as "hiding the truth". So basically my hands are tied at the moment when it comes to improving the article. JOJ ^Hutton 17:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

McDoob, I am assuming bad faith with good reason. This attempt to remove acceptable, accurate and reliable information uses the very same rhetoric anti vaxxers use trying to play down the measles as a serious threat to public health. This happens in a number of different ways, and attempts to hide matters such as this when they should not be is a very good example. Contracting the measles is a major injury, and can (and has in general) lead to death. It is plain that the 40 cases directly eminating from Disneyland were a major incident and what that outbreak caused - including a major change in state law - has to stay. This is an encyclopedia that gives information and even trimming it would deprive people of said information that has been sourced and is reliable. The article is fine and requires no alteration as the whole issue began at Disneyland because of the carelessness of one carrier, 40 who weren't vaccinated at the park and said 40 carrying it out of the park (that explains the higher number of 57) and spreading it further. Curse of Fenric (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

What rhetoric are you referring to exactly? Just seems like you would rather attack my motives, rather than accept the idea that some information just shouldn't be included in this article because it's not relevant to Disneyland. I said before, My concern is with this article. If you want to expand the information, there appears to be an entire article dedicated to new law and the events leading up to it. Perhaps you should expand that article instead of trying to dump all the information into an unrelated one.JOJ ^Hutton 23:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Rhetoric that means "The measles is nothing to worry about" - ie, when you say there was no major injury. It's the same thing, it's wrong and the first part is definitively and demonstrably anti vax. Ergo.....do you understand now? This article is not just related, it is directly related. Curse of Fenric (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Since an article about SB277 now exists, and since Curse claims that the bill is a direct result of the Disneyland outbreak, then should not the bulk of the information move to the SB277 article (as a "history" or "background" subhead) and then this description return to summary form and links to the main article for SB277? Again, this is a SUMMARY of things that have happened, not the play-by-play of the incidents. For the record, I agree with Curse that the park is properly connected to this incident, in the same way that Legionnaires' disease is connected to the organization where the disease was first isolated/identified, even though the organization itself had nothing to do with the disease (it did not engineer it, it did not intentionally spread it, etc.). I also agree with Jojhutton that the amount of coverage can be toned down per WP:UNDUE. Yes, the incident spurred the implementation of SB277, and that should be covered in SB277's article in the detail it deserves ... there, not here. --McDoobAU93 13:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

No I disagree with that. The arrangement should be that the outbreak itself and it's consequences (aside from the SB277 law) should be detailed here. The SB277 law should be mentioned but in brief. Conversely, the outbreak should be mentioned in brief on the SB277 article as the cause and then the legal process and the associated protests (of which there were many) should be detailed there. That is the balance we should be aiming for, and when that balance is achieved WP:UNDUE is not violated. Curse of Fenric (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's a very useful link for the article here showing clearly that major nature of the scare, and includes notes of Disneyland employees being infected. Curse of Fenric (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no balance when most of what is in here, is totally and completely unrelated to Disneyland at all. There is another article, you should consider improving that article instead of adding irrelevant information into this one.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant. You are not correct. Curse of Fenric (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is something that didn't happen at Disneyland and statistics about people that didn't visit Disneyland relevant to this article about Disneyland? Why can't that same information be included in the actual article about the law, instead of bloating this article?--JOJ ^Hutton 14:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It DID happen at Disneyland!! If you can't see that then there is clearly something wrong with you. I'm done. Don't bother to reply. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this edit by an uninvolved user actually resolves most of my issues with the section, and I would presume Jojhutton's, as well. It focuses on what occurred just at Disneyland. Kudos to MDann52 for this bold change. --McDoobAU93 13:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I won't be removing any other information at this time, although I still feel that it's too bloated and contains irrelevant information that has nothing to do with Disneyland at all. On a side note, it appears that Curse of Fenic has been indef blocked for completely unrelated issues to this one, some of which include making personal attacks. JOJ ^Hutton 16:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what you think needs to be removed or changed. Personally I'm okay with what's there, but changes can certainly be made. --McDoobAU93 16:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually I don't think any of it should be in there at all, but since it is, this following part has nothing to do with Disneyland at all:

Over 127 cases of measles have been traced to the Disneyland outbreak, spanning 8 states and 2 additional countries (Mexico and Canada) Measles had been declared eliminated in the United States in the year 2000 when the rate of occurrence was lower than 1:1,000,000,[5] however 57 of the infected patients were found to be not vaccinated against the measles.[6]

The number 127 is not all attributed to Disneyland, especially since only 44 confirmed cases attended the park. In addition, that entire part is not sourced, since the citation at the end of the sentence says nothing about Disneyland or even the number of those affected. Also, what purpose does it serve to say, in this article at least, that Measles had been declared eliminated in the United States in the year 2000 when the rate of occurrence was lower than 1:1,000,000? That is sourced, but again, it has nothing to do with Disneyland at all.

Secondly, the last part describes the number of patients, overall, that had not been "vaccinated". Of course that number, 57, is larger than the actual number of park guests, 44, who attracted the illness at Disneyland. That entire part has nothing to do with Disneyland at all and seems like it was inserted to make a point. All of that information can easily be inserted into the other article California Senate Bill 277, which is where most of this information would be more appropriate.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the statistics after the number of cases were mentioned, which is extraneous to the summary. However, if those 127 cases can be directly traced to Patient Zero at the park, then it would be notable and worthy of inclusion. No the park wasn't at fault, but it was where it all started. I also removed the notation of how many were not vaccinated because there appears to be no distinction between where those cases came from (not vaccinated but visited the park, or not vaccinated and never set foot in the park). --McDoobAU93 20:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

JOJ, we do not follow our beliefs, we follow the reliable independent sources. However passionately you believe the outbreak was not linked to Disneyland, numerous sources say it was, and it is specifically called out in coverage of SB277 as a cause of the outbreak which triggered the Bill. I have no idea why you dislike this fact so much. The outbreak started at Disneyland, unvaccinated visitors were around 35 times more likely to contract measles than vaccinated, and over 70% of vaccine-eligible patients in the outbreak were intentionally unvaccinated. The location of the park brought in a significant vacccine-refusenik cohort among the visitors, and that is why the outbreak happened and why it led directly to SB277. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia, and this article especially, are not platforms for activism. It doesn't matter what percentage of people were unvaccinated or not. How is that relevant to this article? How is the location of the park responsible for the outbreak? Include this information in the article you created about the new law, and stop trying to include it here.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

While I have no doubt the incident occurred at Disneyland, is it Disneyland's fault that many of the guests infected in the park were unvaccinated? Does Disneyland require vaccination prior to entering its property, or has Disneyland taken an anti-vax stand, thus encouraging guests who haven't been vaccinated to attend? If the incident is a direct result of something the park did or did not do, then I think that needs to be included. Otherwise, what's currently here is enough for this SUMMARY. If you wish to expand upon its connection to SB277, it should be done in SB277's article. --McDoobAU93 13:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobody says it's the park's fault. It's the fault of unvaccinated people, that much is made absolutely clear. It is still an incident that happened at the park, which has received international coverage and prompted a very high profile change in the law. You might as well say that Pan Am Flight 103 should not be mentioned in our article on Lockerbie because it wasn't Lockerbie's fault. The change in the law, plus commentary by the CDC, makes this unusual in not just being covered in news sources. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course we would mention Pan Am 103 in an article on Lockerbie, Scotland, but we would not discuss the lead-up and the aftermath in Lockerbie's article ... we would in Pan Am 103's article. In this case, the lead-up would be the number of people who choose to be unvaccinated and the aftermath would be SB277. Going a step further, and making this even more parallel, if you believe there should be an article on 2014 Disneyland measles outbreak as there is for Pan Am 103, be bold and create it and add all the supporting information before and after the incident. Then this SUMMARY would link to the main article on the incident. --McDoobAU93 14:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

And that is exactly what we do here: we have a short paragraph that establishes the context, the extent to which the park is relevant as the place where the outbreak started and spread, the demographic of park customers that made this happen, and the long term significance, in that it was a catalyst for SB277. Given the significance of this even and the fact that it is far and away the most widely covered event that has happened at the park, our coverage seems entirely proportionate - the para is shorter than, for example, that on a single visitor suffering an aneurysm. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

But it's not what has been done here, and it's not what is here. The focus of the additions appears to be shaming anti-vaxers instead of focusing on what actually occurred. This I believe is the biggest part of Jojhutton's complaints about the edits. Again, create an article on 2014 Disneyland measles outbreak, include any/all details you want and I'll be glad to see a {{Main|2014 Disneyland measles outbreak}} tag added to the article. --McDoobAU93 14:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the point about the antivaxers is precisely that it is not the park's fault, they just happened to be a place where an infected patient met sufficiently non-immune individuals for an outbreak to occur. You give an impression fo trying to have it both ways: it should nto be in the article because it's not the park's fault and it should not explain that it's not the park's fault because that is "activist" (hint: the CDC are not activists). Guy (Help!) 14:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Guy: this is a major incident that occured at Disneyland. The way it is currently written doesn't suggest that Disney are at fault. I'd caution against the suggestion that people wanting it to be excluded are anti-vaxxers: they may be big fans of Disney and wish to see the article free of this frankly rather unlucky incident. I think any intelligent reader who is capable of parsing the text currently in the article won't somehow attribute the measles outbreak at Disneyland to the actions or omissions of Disney staff or management (like they might if, say, a whole bunch of people died due to an engineering problem with a theme park ride). It's certainly unlucky for the Disney company that their corporate identity is associated with the measles outbreak, but Wikipedia doesn't exclude well sourced material from an article just to protect a multi-billion dollar international company from some very bad luck. Keep it in. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Incident during Fantasmic/Rivers of America

The cast member playing Dopey stepped through the railing of the Mark Twain and fell to the lower floor, but Goofy broke his fall. The cast members were soon after treated by an ambulance and then released. http://time.com/4443779/watch-out-dopey-disney-character-takes-a-tumble-in-disney-world-live-show/ I'm putting this here because I'm not sure of the best way to word it, or if a source other than or in addition to Time.com should be used. Dogman15 (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

That happened in Florida. This is an article about the resort in Anaheim. JOJ ^Hutton 02:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Incidents at Disneyland Resort. 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/20090315051823/http://www.aitkenlaw.com/verdicts_settlements/disneys_big_thunder_mountain.html to http://www.aitkenlaw.com/verdicts_settlements/disneys_big_thunder_mountain.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fnews%2Farchive%2F2005%2F06%2F16%2Fstate%2Fn163227D85.DTL
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070104/disneyland_lawsuit.html?.v=1

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) 03:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

bibiliography?

anyone recall why there's a bibliography section on this article? Doesn't look like it belongs, but thought I'd ask before I WP:BOLD and removed it SpikeJones (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No objections posted in 6 months, so rewritten/removed. SpikeJones (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Incidents at Disneyland Resort. 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/20141006102144/http://www.myfoxla.com/story/26693325/riders-rescued-after-disney-ferris-wheel-malfunctions-at-california-adventure to http://www.myfoxla.com/story/26693325/riders-rescued-after-disney-ferris-wheel-malfunctions-at-california-adventure

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) 20:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 August 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below; the move protection had already been removed by another administrator. Dekimasuよ! 06:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Incidents at Disneyland Resort → List of incidents at Disneyland Resort – It looks like non-administrators can't move this article. It would be better if an administrator renamed this article from "Incidents at Disneyland Resort" to "List of incidents at Disneyland Resort" so that the titles of all four articles regarding the incidents at various Disney parks are consistent. This is what the result would look like if a reader was on the "List of incidents at Disney parks" article:

• List of incidents at Disneyland Resort
• List of incidents at Walt Disney World
• List of incidents at Tokyo Disney Resort
• List of incidents at Disneyland Paris

Last month, there was a discussion to remove the words "List of" in the three other articles, which failed because they are considered to be lists. Clearly, this article is also a list. Will Be Continued (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. This is a bulleted list so it's fine to rename it. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - let's keep our naming consistent. Also, not sure why this is move-protected since there doesn't seem to have ever been a move war... Or a move, ever. Requesting unprotection. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.