Talk:The Walt Disney Company/Archive/2015

Strange edit by User:Lihaas

User:Lihaas added this really strange edit on 6 February 2014: "Disney reported that its business is "affected by its ability to exploit and protect against infringement of its intellectual property, including trademarks, trade names, copyrights, patents and trade secrets." That is a non-notable statement.

I've read only about 100 annual statements of corporations in my lifetime (which is a relatively small number), but even I can tell the difference between disclosures of truly unique risks and boilerplate text that is used by virtually every corporation with any significant amount of intellectual property. Nearly every member of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Fortune 500 has a similar clause in their Form 10-K. Just pick one at random and search for "intellectual property" and you'll see it.

To clarify the difference: It's like saying "Steve Jobs liked to drive luxury cars"---so does almost other wealthy American. What is notable is that Steve Jobs liked to drive a Mercedes-Benz with no license plates by leasing a new one every time he hit the legal deadline for attaching plates to his car. Any objections before I excise that statement? --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No response. I'm taking it out. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose we merge Criticism of The Walt Disney Company with The Walt Disney Company to adhere to NPOV and not allow articles to be divided by the basis of their point of view. if the merge makes the article too long we can create topic based spin off articles to get it to a appropriate length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Carmony (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. The criticism article is longer than this article and is stuffed full of non-notable or marginally notable craziness. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 18 May 2015

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: not moved. Calidum T|C 20:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The Walt Disney Company → Disney – By far the simplest and most common name. Unreal7 (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose ambiguous title. Khestwol (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not so sure about that. With the exception of a few cases of vandalism, Disney has redirected to this article for 8 years, meaning that it appears unlikely that people see ambiguity here.--65.94.255.135 (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

But "Disney" is a very popular surname too. Hence a disambiguation is required. Khestwol (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no argument with the current title but Disney as a reference to the film comp. is far and away WP:Primary. I would be interested, in a search on "disney" how long it would take to get a result that was a little less "Mickey Mouse". GregKaye 21:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose & Speedy Close Totally agree with Khestwol. "Disney" may refer to channel, Walt Disney (co-founder of the company), the speedway (Walt Disney World Speedway) or any of the theme parks that the company owns. --Mega-buses (discusión / Talk) 19:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose the overall company v the studio v the person v the themeparks/cruises. There is no clear primary topic. The redirect should be replaced by a disambiguation page. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - people saying it's ambiguous are perhaps missing the fact that it already redirects here. Red Slash 01:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  It should probably redirect to Walt Disney instead of to the company he founded. Randy Kryn 1:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

  Why? Guess where Ford redirects you? Red Slash 03:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for same reasons articulated by Khestwol, 65.94.43.89, Mega-buses, and Randy Kryn. The editor proposing this move is apparently unfamiliar with the gargantuan complexity of the subject of this article. (Try reading some of the articles on the Walt Disney Company's various "business segments.") --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support per nom. Definite WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and already established as such. In fact, it's redirected here since April 2006! --BDD (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Obviously the opposers don't realise that Disney already redirects here! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I had considered asking each of them if they would support moving Disney (disambiguation) there instead, but that seemed like it could be obnoxious. To his or her credit, the IP has at least been up front about supporting that option. --BDD (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I clearly stated the redirect should be replaced by a disambiguation page -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the redirect should be replaced by a disambiguation page. Khestwol (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Also agree, the best option is to redirect Disney to Disney (disambiguation). Msw1002 (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's definitely out. Per WP:MALPLACED, "Foo" should never redirect to "Foo (disambiguation)". You'd have to move the dab over the redirect. --BDD (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice use of Lion King reference there BDD. Couldn't be a better talk page for it. Elisfkc (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose The company is legally named The Walt Disney Company. There is already the redirect (which I believe should stay in place, considering the fact that very few people will be looking for any of the parks, channels, or other divisions of the company when they search for "Disney") for the name "Disney" and it is also at the very beginning of the page. I see no reason why any changes to the pathways to get this page should be changed, let alone the name change. Elisfkc (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  Legal names and common names are two different things. Unreal7 (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

True, but it seems that the precedent around Wikipedia is to use the legal name, with a redirect for the common name to the article (unless the common name can mean something else). Examples included, but are not limited to: Ford Motor Company & Ford (as well as most of the other auto companies), Dow Chemical Company & Dow, LG Corporation & LG, as well as nearly every sports team. I'm with Coolcaesar, Khestwol, Mega-buses, & 65.94.43.89, the page name should stay as is. Elisfkc (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Pixar's legal name is Pixar Animation Studios. Unreal7 (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - Legal name is Walt Disney Company, and we don't want to be confused with the ABC-Disney subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CookieMonster755 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 May 2015‎

Oppose As per Khestwol. I also think Disney should be changed to the redirect. --Gonnym (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2015 (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.

They just replaced their gateway arch!

They just replaced the big gateway arch over the entrance on Alameda Avenue. I was wondering why the version of the arch at D23 Expo 2015 had no palm tree leaves on the columns. Now I know: it was a preview of the new design which is beige with no palm tree leaves. But the new arch definitely has the shape of Mickey Mouse's head (a not-really hidden Hidden Mickey) in the middle. Unfortunately, I won't be able for a while to stop by and get a picture during the optimal hours of around 2 PM to 4 PM in the afternoon (when the sunlight is just right). If anyone can circle by Burbank during those hours with a good camera before I can, go for it. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2015

Can you add that Disney will open new units, including waterfront cabins, at Disney's Wilderness Lodge. per http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/os-disney-wilderness-lodge-timeshare-20150922-story.html Disneycox (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Seems very much WP:UNDUE on this article. Might be better on Disney's Wilderness Lodge, but it would probably be better to add something when the units are actually added Cannolis (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)