Talk:20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: Submarine Voyage
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: Submarine Voyage article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: Submarine Voyage. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea: Submarine Voyage at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Complete Overhaul
editGave the 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea article the overhaul and updating it deserves. Hope this one's better. --UD75 01:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point
editOther than, I suppose, the description of the attraction itself, what needs cleaning up? --UD75 18:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:20kposter.JPG
editImage:20kposter.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 00:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
conspiracy
edit"However, several conspiracy theories of deliberate sabotage by Walt Disney World Resort Operations persist to this day."
If it is going to be mentioned at all then please state what the conspiracy theories are. Otherwise this is simply cryptic.
Copyediting needed
editThis seems a basically good article, but it needs a careful copy-edit - "At 11.5 million US gallons (44,000 m3) of water throughout, it was one of the biggest and most expensive Disney attractions ever conceived." for example makes no sense, even if it hung together grammatically. Size and expense aren't measured in gallons of water. Rich Farmbrough, 18:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC).
Unsourced Material
editArticle has been tagged for needing sources since 2009. Please feel free to re-add the below material with appropriate citations. DonIago (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Florida Project and the Submarine Voyage's successor
|
---|
==Florida Project and the Submarine Voyage's successor==
By the time development work for what is today Walt Disney World began, Disney imagineers had already been working out a rough concept for a sister attraction to Disneyland's Submarine Voyage. At 11.5 million US gallons (44,000 m3) of water throughout, it was one of the biggest and most expensive Disney attractions ever conceived. The Florida version had 12 submarines (14 counting two submarines which grappled with giant squids on either side of the track). It is popularly believed that the Magic Kingdom attraction was originally intended to have been installed in place of the Submarine Voyage in California in 1959, as the two attractions were identical except for the theming and some elements of the plot. It is also believed that the ride's corporate sponsor, General Dynamics, preferred to keep the original concept, and so the Submarine Voyage opened in 1959 with a non-specific theme, and with nuclear as opposed to Victorian submarines. Despite the efforts of the construction and installation teams attached to the 20,000 Leagues project, the attraction opened two weeks after the Magic Kingdom due to infrastructure problems with the lagoon. On October 14, 1971, it was opened for business. The completed attraction covered almost a quarter of Fantasyland, including the lagoon and hidden show building surrounded by palm trees and volcanic rock, meant to evoke the impression of Captain Nemo's Pacific Ocean base Vulcania. A storage facility at the back of the show building served to house submarines removed from the main line during day-to-day operation, and also included a dry dock for repair work. Along the shores of the lagoon, small beaches were built, one with a chest of abandoned pirate treasure. The words "20,000 Leagues" were spelled out in nautical code from signaling flags at the entrance to the attraction. The team of cast members operating the attraction played the roles of Nemo's ever-silent crew, and even wore authentic replicas of the screen production's costumes. Throughout the attraction's life, the crews were almost exclusively male. The first helmswoman appeared in the 1970s. |
Magic Kingdom version vs. Tokyo DisneySea version
editIt seems very odd to me that these two attractions share a page. Despite sharing source material, they're very different ride experiences and stories, and the TDS version is certainly not a clone of the MK version. They also do not share a name; the TDS does not append 'Submarine Voyage' to the end. I suspect that maybe someone unfamiliar with the Tokyo attraction has grouped them together based solely on the name and IP.
At the very least, this page needs two sections, one for each version of the attraction. I would personally argue they need separate pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.249.151 (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
"Cold War-friendly grey"
editWhat does this mean? Just wondering.
204.48.46.11 (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've removed the wording given that Grey doesn't mention the Cold War and no sourcing was provided. DonIago (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)