Talk:Walt Disney Studios (Burbank)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived 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 Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]



– It is customary for the full city name to be used as the dab handle with possible exception for cities on

talk) 21:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Oppose. Not needed. Apteva (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - no need for further disambiguation, "Burbank" is sufficient. Cheers, Raime 17:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not needed for the reasons stated. Burbank has come a long way from the days when "beautiful downtown Burbank" was a punch line. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Walt Disney Studios (Burbank). 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:

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.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silly lead

The entire second paragraph (and longest) of the current three-paragraph lead is devoted to a weird fixation on studio tourism, while the date that the studio first became operational, or officially opened does make the cut.

It's too much: I'm going to flag this for {{Inadequate lead}}. — MaxEnt 20:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]