Should we maybe keep the World pavilions section in See, and move Future World down to Do? My plans for contributing to this COTM is pretty much limited to getting the world showcases up to speed (and maybe help with some mapping), as this is not really my type of place - but I find telling about the real places much more interesting (could use some help btw). But at least I'm going make sure that section has some good content. And I think separating those two, fits pretty nicely with our general idea of attractions versus activities. --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 14:51, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
Our traditional see/do divisions may not apply well to large theme parks. However, if we must use them, I don't see much reason to put all of Future World in "Do". Only limited areas of Future World are interactive in any way. I do look forward to seeing what you can do with World Showcase, though. =) LtPowers 20:24, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
Ah, now that I've taken a look, I think your little historical tidbits are great, although I'm not sure how appropriate they are here. I'll have to think about that. LtPowers 20:36, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
Aw, come on, I spend good time on those - although I could agree that my contempt for these contraptions of cultural karaoke might shine through a few places (feel free to edit those), I also think visitors who are into these kind of things, and come to see the world in 30 minutes, will find the small back stories interesting - I mean if you have this printed out, you are reading about the places you see recreated in front of you. and it sets us apart from other guides, in a way I think is very appropriate for a place like wikitravel. --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 21:02, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
Usually that kind of thing goes an in infobox, though. I'm certainly willing to get input from others. =) LtPowers 21:22, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
w00t! You don't think there is more than enough infoboxes smacked around everywhere already? :) --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 21:54, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
You know, probably it just seems like too much relative to the information that's there. Once we get those entries fleshed out more, your historical background might fit in just fine. LtPowers 08:43, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
I agree, the historical information seems to me straightforwardly relevant and worth keeping. Not something that we need, but a great thing to have nonetheless. Hopefully these will be fleshed out with more practical information—to me it's not clear at all what is there or even what they are! (I've never been.) --PeterTalk 17:21, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
Peter has expressed a strong preference for maps of each individual park. I'm beginning to agree that those will be necessary to have a truly comprehensive guide, but I'm not yet convinced that a Wikitravel-style map is going to work well. As I noted in my proposal to slush-pile the nomination, the stagecraft that Disney uses to design their parks means that an overhead view of the park doesn't mesh well with the guests' perceptions of the park. Disney uses illustrated oblique-angle views in their park maps for precisely that reason.
I'm working on an Epcot-area map, and I'll post it up here when it's done so we can decide if that's what we want in the article.
Here's a preliminary version of the Epcot map. No labels yet, until a scale is finalized. I left out large swaths of backstage areas, including roads and parking lots. I was also unsure how much of the area to paint green. Almost everything here that isn't paved is filled with trees, so I wasn't sure where to draw the line between "onstage" green spaces and "backstage" green spaces.
The map also illustrates the perception gap well. The icon of Epcot is Spaceship Earth, a huge geodesic sphere. It dominates the entire area and is the main point of reference in the park and for some distance around. But just try to find it on this map.
Holy (bleep)! That is incredible! I definitely want to see something like that for our WDW park maps, it looks so dynamic and just totally freaking awesome.
I do have two potential objections though - I'm not entirely sure that taking out the resorts and leaving it up to the overview map is a good idea. The resorts are no longer on the main article, but the overview map is. I prefer to have that convinence where the map showing the location of the resorts is on the same page as the resort listings themselves.
And secondly, this isn't so much an objection, but more a comment about the, er, uniqueness (who am I kidding, awesomeness) of the map, is that a map like this will be much, much more difficult to make than a regular top-down view (I'm still rattling my brain trying to figure out how you pulled this off), which really limits the amount of people who could make such a map. This isn't a huge problem for WDW, since all you have to do is make just five such maps and we'll be set, but I think it's something we should keep in mind. PerryPlanetTalk 13:39, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
Thanks ;) It would be very easy to make a small Epcot resort map (in addition to the park map) from the same SVG. Personally, I'd rather keep the resorts off the park map just so it's easier to read the park map in article (also, most visitors to the park probably won't need the resort map?). That will take me all of 10 minutes, so I'll make one tonight.
Skewing the map is tricky without any support for 3-d rotation in Inkscape, but it's manageable. The more time intensive task is still the satellite trace, which LtPowers had already taken care of. So if anyone, ahem, wants to do more traces and then pass it on to me for skewing... --PeterTalk 14:04, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
If we're going to start making additional maps, maybe it would be easier if we just did an Epcot overview map that was a regular top-down view (in other words, what LtPowers already did), showing where the resorts and theme parks are, and then have this theme park map with the neat perspective. PerryPlanetTalk 14:12, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
Love it! my only objections is find the "flagpoles" quite ugly, not sure if it's the "texture", if they are too thick, or what exactly is wrong with them. --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 15:28, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
I've edited the flagpoles to be thinner, stroked, and added bases/tops. Look better? --PeterTalk 03:05, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Alright, I threw together a map (which is basically a barely modified version of LtPowers' original map) showing the park and resorts to scale, with the resorts annotated. I don't know which resorts are where, exactly, so I've left it incomplete. I've also now burnt out on this one, so I'm hoping someone else will take over and finish what's left ;) If someone does, watch out for that gigantic svg object (the Epcot ball)—best to leave that layer turned off while editing, unless you have a really fast computer. --PeterTalk 03:41, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
I don't want to be too critical, because I think Peter's non-orthogonal map has several very good ideas in it. I never even considered skewing the map to mimic a different point of view; very good job coming up with that. I also like the flagpoles with the flags. The image of Spaceship Earth is a good idea, but I'm not sure it meshes well with the style of the map.
I think the biggest improvement, though, is outlining the buildings. I can't put my finger on why it helps, but it does. I'll have to try doing that with my original overhead map and see how that works.
That said, the oblique view has some problems, and here's where I don't want it to seem like I'm dismissing Peter's excellent work. The image, to my eyes, looks weird because of the lack of perspective. It looks, to my eyes, as if Future World is "curling" up. It's not, but my eyes are expecting perspective in the image and not getting it. Although -- after some experimentation, that might be fixable by rotating the skewed image to the left; look at the once-circle of Test Track -- the long axis of the now-ellipse should be horizontal in the image, as otherwise it looks like the conceptual "camera" was tilted when the image was "captured". Fixing that may alleviate the problem. I'll experiment with that, too.
Unfortunately, several of the issues I mentioned at the top of this section above still remain. I welcome any additional thoughts on them.
Here we are again, folks. I think I've covered everything in this area of Walt Disney World, but it's a lot more involved than Hollywood Studios was. I appreciate questions and comments, especially related to issues that might not have come up in the Studios nomination.
Note: I plan to be adding an Epcot resorts map within a few days, but I think the article is complete without it and I didn't want to wait to start getting input.
Support. Reads really well and is packed with info. A few of the restaurants seem to be missing hours, and more info for the Buy listings (nearly all of them are missing hours) would be nice, but otherwise it looks fine. Good work! PerryPlanetTalk 23:03, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
Thanks, I overlooked the hours for the Coral Reef and the ESPN Club. Kouzzina's hours are not yet set, AFAIK, since it's still in soft-opening mode. As for buy, I'll see what I can do, but all of the shops in the park operate from opening to closing time; in the hotels it's pretty much "all day" but I can understand that specifics would be useful. LtPowers 12:50, 30 August 2009 (EDT)
Update. I've added the resorts map. I put it in the Eat section because most of the items on the map are restaurants and because the Eat section had room for it. =) I also have added the Candlelight Processional event to the Annual Festivals section. LtPowers 13:47, 30 August 2009 (EDT)
I'm very much aware it's my own little hobby horse, and I'll see if I can maybe do something to fix this myself, but either we should get rid of my little attempt to add some culture to the darn thing (which would make me sad, cause I really like it), or we need some work at the Italy, France and Canada sections in the world showcase. --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 16:36, 30 August 2009 (EDT)
Not sure. The descriptions of the World Showcase pavilions are pretty long, and they seem anything but relevant to the matter at hand. (Although I admit I did the Germany, Italy, France and Canada ones myself.) Seriously, I doubt the average visitor would be enticed by the historical/cultural/religious/etc. value. However, other than that I am impressed with the way the rest of the article turned out. Jonathan 784 21:10, 30 August 2009 (EDT)
Support. Some Buy listings could use hours, but the article turned out nicely. I also think the descriptions are fun to read, so if anyone expands Canada, France, Germany and Italy, it would definitely be a star. Globe-trotter 06:39, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
Update. I've tried my hand at improving the Germany, Italy, France, and Canada descriptions. I'm still looking for hours for the shops in the resorts, but they're hard to find. (On the other hand, they're generally open long hours; most visitors won't encounter any shops that are closed just because they've showed up too early or too late.) LtPowers 21:48, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
Almost. The only thing I'd really like to see before starring are the hours for buy listings in the resorts. Non-essential things: 1) I don't think it's necessary to repeat the resort addresses for every eat, drink, buy, etc. listing—you could just state in the directions field what resort the listing is in (as you already have done). 2) I suggest you revisit your initial worry with the map, and find a good way to make Spaceship Earth more prominent (if you want to resurrect the SVG object I made, it's available here. As you said, it's not at all obvious where it is, and it should be. Especially for someone unfamiliar with the park, who just wants to print the map—until I read the article, I knew it only as "that big Epcott ball." Those things said, this is a very solid article—nice work! --PeterTalk 22:51, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
I think the resort stores are usually open until 11 at night, and mostly they open up an hour or two before the parks open. That applies to the Disney resorts; for the Swan and Dolphin I can't be sure. For the map, I'll see what I can do; there didn't seem to be a lot of reaction to my original concern so I left it with just a light outline around the sphere's circumference. LtPowers 10:35, 22 September 2009 (EDT)
Update. Maps, prose, and listings have been updated per the above comments -- please review and see if they meet with your approval. LtPowers 15:44, 1 October 2009 (EDT)
Should I assume the silence means approval? Or are there still improvements that must be made? LtPowers 13:01, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
Guess you should, my concerns have been adressed anyways, so i'd be happy to smack a Support after this one, great work. --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 15:53, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
Promoted. There doesn't seem to be any remaining opposition. Thanks for your input, everyone. LtPowers 19:55, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
I don't mean to be a stickler here, and I don't want to edit war with LtPowers, but seeing as how right-alignment is the norm for us, I'm going to insist on consensus before we make an exception in the case of the photo at Walt Disney World/Epcot#World Showcase. One of the reasons we normally put images on the right is because different left-aligned images cause all sorts of format problems on different browsers. With my current browser, this particular case causes this:
It breaks up the text quite awkwardly and frankly, looks terrible. I don't see any reason why this image shouldn't be on the right with everything else. Texugo 20:16, 8 March 2010 (EST)
It's a basic principle of graphic design -- don't cluster all your non-text elements in the same place. With the photo on the right, it's shoved up against the infobox and the stave church photo. All-right text looks amateurish and boring; it's always a good idea to provide some variety in placement of elements. LtPowers 20:55, 8 March 2010 (EST)
And, I might add, this article passed a star nomination with flying colors and no one so much as said "boo" about photo alignment. LtPowers 20:56, 8 March 2010 (EST)
I agree with Texugo. Avoiding left aligned images is a principle upheld not only by well-established convention, but also by several discussions over the years (including an old starnom). It's especially important that this article, as a star article, conforms to our standards. Clusters don't look good, as you say, but that seems to me an argument to space the images out, rather than break up the text with left-aligned images. Why not simply move the picture of the American Adventure's pavilion to the American Adventure section? --PeterTalk 21:08, 8 March 2010 (EST)
Might I suggest that this debate should not be taking place on two different article talk pages at the same time, but at Wikitravel:How_to_add_an_image (or another guidance page if there is one more appropriate). It is no wonder there is confusion over this when the How to page mentions no preference for right or left aligned images. --Burmesedays 21:45, 8 March 2010 (EST)
The order of listings in the Eat and Sleep sections was recently changed to be geographical instead of alphabetical. While I can see the point to an extent, I'm not sure it's the best idea. We generally prefer alphabetical listings, unless there's an obvious alternative. In the case of World Showcase, there is, but I'm not sure that's the case elsewhere in the park and at the resorts. LtPowers 20:35, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Perhaps spliting Eat and Sleep into two sections one for World Showcase and one for Futureworld? They are distinct enough areas within the park, especially for overall visitor perception. Doing that would allow for the geographical flow for World Showcase and the traditional alphabetic for Futureworld. Futureworld first, World Showcase second, since that is the overall experience a guest using the maintrance would get when they visit Epcot. Hawkeyefla 16:40, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
Yeah, but there are only four restaurants in Future World... Sunshine Seasons, Garden Grill, Coral Reef, and Electric Umbrella. That's not really enough for a separate subsection. (And I'm not sure why you included "Sleep"....) LtPowers 20:07, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
Fair enough. And Sleep mostly without thinking to be honest. Probably because at the time sleep is what I wanted. Hawkeyefla 14:55, 25 September 2011 (EDT)