Much better :D-- 12:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

What should this template list?

I think this is a great template to provide an at-a-glance summary of what the Parks and Resorts properties are at each location. I don't feel it's necessary for this template to list the Parks and Resorts executives, nor the "miscellaneous" properties such as Imagineering or the Oriental Land Company. I do, though, think it would be nice to list Downtown Disney and Ikspiari and the like. What do y'all think? - Brian Kendig 03:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well obviously I think the opposite so I am not going to get involved at the moment cos if it is just me and you we will argue, as we are at opposite ends of the spectrum.--Speedway 09:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I have been thinking about this, and I think we should discuss this.

I do not feel it necessary to include areas of the resorts which are not as important as the main attractions (the parks), whereas you do not think it is necessary to include the executives and the company affiliates. That is fair enough, but as I think the main cause of wars on is stubbornous, I think we should compromise. With a lot more compromises, would be a lot more peaceful I think.

I like what you did with the rearranding of the actual template, it looks much better. The whole thing should be like that though, not just the resorts. I will agree with including the Downtown Disneys, Ikspiari and Disney Village (not Golf Disneyland though) if you leave the executives and affiliates as they are. The template is about Walt Disney Parks and Resorts as a company, not actual parks and resorts owned by Walt Disney if you know what I mean, so that is why I think we should include affliates like Imagineering, Creative Entertainment etc as especially those two companies make a big difference to what goes on in the parks, and are so important they are included in the Parks and Resorts corporate umbrella. What do you think? --Speedway 10:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

First off: it takes two to argue, and I'm not going to argue. This is just a template; it's Not All That Important. Please don't jump to conclusions and say that you and I are at "opposite ends of the spectrum." All I want, and I presume that all you want, is what's best for.
With that said: Consider, what is the purpose of this template, exactly? Is there some place in which gives guidelines for what bottom-of-the-page templates should be? I don't think this template should aim to be a complete substitute for the Parks and Resorts page; instead, I think it should be a shortcut to the most common articles people might want to visit. That's why I don't think it's useful to list the executives here, especially as each executive heads only one specific resort; most folks probably won't know who these people are. And the Miscellaneous links really only have a tenuous connection to Parks and Resorts - they are not considered part of the P&R "corporate umbrella" (especially the Oriental Land Company which isn't even part of Disney). The very fact that this section is named "Miscellaneous" shows that it doesn't really know why it's there. If we wanted to be more thorough, we'd link the executives as well as their superiors such as Michael Eisner and Bob Iger, and we'd list a whole lot more links which are related to Parks and Resorts, but then the template would be huge.
On the same note, perhaps a template for Parks and Resorts should list the resorts available at each location? But then that would sprawl, too, especially considering all the resorts at WDWR. So, let me ask you this: what do you consider the purpose of this template to be, and can you give a rule of thumb for what kind of information it should contain? - Brian Kendig 13:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
On the arguing issue, I meant that it could develop into an argument if lots of people joined in, but I certainly don't want to argue and I know you don't so it isn't an issue at all :).

I know OLC isn't Disney, I did originally stated that the examples of Imagineering and CE were included under the umbrella. The OLC and EuroDisney SCA are not owned by Disney at all. I agree with you on the singular resorts, there are simply too many at WDWR. I consider the purpose of this template to link people to the various areas of the Walt Disney Parks and Resorts unit of the Walt Disney Company. This includes; the five resorts, the companies that are involved in the resorts, the executives who lead the resorts, the companies involved, and the unit itself, and the theme parks in each resort. I think I led it in more of a business-y direction with the corporate info and removing the 'extra' stuff at the resorts. --Speedway 20:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

There are a LOT of companies involved in the resorts. Choosing just those five to mention, that seems rather arbitrary. I still feel that a "Miscellaneous" section doesn't belong in a template.
If you want to "link people to the various areas of the Walt Disney Parks and Resorts unit of the Walt Disney Company", that's what the Walt Disney Parks and Resorts article is for. When you stated the purpose of the template, you simply defined it as exactly what you had already made the template - why should a "Parks and Resorts" template list non-Disney companies but not mention any of the resorts? Do you think more people will be interested in Matt Ouimet than are interested in the Contemporary Resort?
I've spoken with people who don't understand the difference between Disneyland and WDW, and who don't understand that there are several parks at each location. I think the individual park pages should have a template listing all the parks Disney runs, and that's all I feel this template should be, especially as the template name is "Disneyparks". I really don't think anyone needs to have a quick link to Karl Holz or the Oriental Land Company. Could we strip this down to link to only the resorts and parks, or could you explain why the "Miscellanous" links are important to be in a template? - Brian Kendig 20:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion hasn't gone anywhere on this recently, so I'm removing the "Miscellaneous" section for now because I still feel the five links in it are arbitrary - I don't understand why those were chosen instead of other links. If you feel there are other articles which should be linked from this template, then let's come up with something that states their purpose better than "Miscellaneous". - Brian Kendig 02:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the discussion hasn't gone anywhere because I've had more important things to do. I see compromises have gone out of the window - I stated previously Golf Disneyland should not return. Golf Disneyland is a golf course - WDWR has eight, and two crazy golf courses. I can't remember the last time someone who had just came back from DLRP and said they had a great time at the golf course. --Speedway 10:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I apologise, I was reading the changes in editting and it looked like you had added Typhoon Lagoon etc., but you had removed them.--Speedway 10:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

This template is too big

I mean really, look at it. It's huge! Do we really need to list the presidents of each resort? Couldn't that be on each of their respective pages? -james_anatidae 02:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What should this list (2)

This template is now getting to the point where other Disney related things are being linked with it. It should be strictly for parks, and maybe for the cruise line, but nothing else. Suggestions? J@redtalk+ ubx  21:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for the addition of the Downtown Disneys, as well as possibly adding DisneyQuest. --Comthought 04:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I added Disney Regional Entertainment, ESPN Zone, Walt Disney Imagineering, and World of Disney because they are all part of Walt Disney Parks And Resorts. I didn't add anything unrelated to the division. Jonyyeh 19:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Jonyyeh, I don't think that any of those should really be a part of the template. None of them are parks, park-like, or a resort specifically. They may be related, but here's my reasoning: ESPN Zone, a restaurant, has locations in the resorts but it is not a park itself. If ESPN Zone has an entry, then why not any other restaurant at the resorts? If World of Disney is on there, why not every other store in the resorts? If Imagineering, why not any other affiliated group? I vote to remove these because they just are not significantly under the general umbrella of the template. --Comthought 05:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, World of Disney and ESPN Zone both have locations outside the resorts. ESPN Zone has most of its locations outside the Disney resorts. In fact, ESPN Zone is operated by Disney Regional Entertainment, which is part of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. Walt Disney Imagineering is the group that designs the Disney Parks, and they are also in the same division as the parks. Hey, the title of this template is Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, not Disney parks in general. I also suggest that you read the Jay Rasulo article. It basically lists all of the businesses that Jay oversees as chairman of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts. Jonyyeh 17:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)