Talk:List of incidents at Disney parks

message: I have added the names of deceased accident victims to numerous articles in Wikipedia and never encountered any problem with this until now.  Just in case, I checked the BLP policy and as far as I can see, it does not prohibit the display of accident victim's names. Note that in this recent article, several of the victim's names are included.  I am going to readd the name.  Please do not remove it until you can show here on the talk page why the policy suddenly prohibits this in this particular article, but no other in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is policy to remove a person's name if they are known for only one thing, per WP:BLP and WP:BLP1E.  Part of the reason, as discussed at length over at Talk:Incidents at Six Flags parks and elsewhere, is for respect of the victim's family's privacy moving forward, and that "WP covers the incident, not the person".  That these policies are not followed on other pages is not relevant here. SpikeJones (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: BLP1E does not prohibit mentioning the vicitim's names in this case.  Please check it again.  The policy states that there should not be an article about people notable for one event.  Also, the policy states, "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases or occupations), it is often preferable to omit it."  That is not the case here or in the names you just removed from the Metro accident article.  Wuennenberg's name was disseminated widely in the Associated Press report, and the Metro victim's names were in the Washington Post, a major daily newsapaper.  The next line states, "Take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living [italics mine] individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value."  You are misinterpreting the policy, I will readd the name. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I too, could claim that you are misinterpreting policy. As stated above, the victim's name is secondary to the incident being reported, and is otherwise non-encyclopedic. SpikeJones (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would like to try and remove the names of all victims from all Wikipedia articles, you have quite a task ahead of you.  I suggest you get started.  In the meantime, I'll open an RfC on the issue. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, as stated before - just because other articles allow it doesn't mean it can apply here. SpikeJones (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of deceased's name from monorail accident

message: Since the article is protected, there's no point in warning our readers of rapid change. Anyhow, the current event template is explicitly not supposed to be used the way it is used in this article. --Conti|✉ 20:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing current event template 

message: Have things settled down sufficiently?  With initial findings from the NTSB out now in reliable sources, there is good, citable information that can be added to this article.--RadioFan (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect? 

message: I just read that a Woman is suing disney after she was groped by Donald Duck.  --72.178.210.53 (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I read an article about this incident, and some things sound kinda sketchy. For example, why did the complainant wait two years to bring a case? If it was as horrible as she says it was, I'd have been at Guest Relations within minutes complaining then. But, that's my opinion on the matter ... if other editors find this alleged incident notable enough, it should be added. My vote is it's not.  --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Incident added as the suit references other cases that have gone to court. If it ends up with payment or acquital, we'll indicate the result. SpikeJones (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Incident For Characters

message: Is there a specific reason why the Table of Contents is on the right hand side, not the left?  I thought the left was the norm.  a_man_alone (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: When you have a long ToC, like this article does, that would push the article content way down, making it tough to read. This format appears to be much better, in my opinion.  --McDoobAU93 15:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ToC on the right? 

message: In order to avoid undue weight being placed on the effects of the recent tsunami on Tokyo Disney Resort, and because of a lack of such an article (possibly for lack of incidents involving same), would now be the time to start up the Incidents at Tokyo Disney Resort article, so info on the quake aftermath at the park can be moved there?  --McDoobAU93 21:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to start up "Incidents at Tokyo Disney Resort"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Procedural note: since it relates more directly to Incidents at Disneyland Resort, I have copied this discussion to Talk:Incidents at Disneyland Resort#Twilight Zone Tower of Terror: allow first-hand account?. —C.Fred (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Incidents at Disneyland Resort#Twilight Zone Tower of Terror]]: allow first-hand account?

message: I deleted it since there's no page about it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizarre carl (talk • contribs) 17:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted incidents at Hon Kong  

message: December 2, 2012 - Emergency crews arrived to find a sedan lodged in the iron fence of the Walt Disney Studios property. The driver was pronounced dead at the scene. Reported in the Burbank Leader Dec 3, 2012  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammobox (talk • contribs) 03:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Incident at Disney Studio, Burbank" 

message: The links for both parks take you to the park page, where an alleged "Incidents" section has been removed (or never existed). Should these be taken out entirely? If there are no pages with incidents listed, there is no need for the links to exist. Sometimes the end is only the beginning... (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Hong Kong and Shanghai Be Removed? 

message: Considering that this page is not itself a list, I recommend a page move to Lists of incidents at Disney parks.--ϟᴇɴsᴏʀꜰɪʀᴇ (✎|‽) 16:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Move to Lists of incidents at Disney parks 

message: I feel I know an ex. Employee who claimed injuries and have been doing this with other insurance companies claiming accident and suing she is still having workers compensation paying for drugs, I believe they are addictive drugs.  Who do I  report this possible problem to? 98.152.101.146 (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ex employee of Disneyland  fake workman's comp.