This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide. For questions, comments, or personal stories about this destination or topic, visit Wikitravel Extra. For more about using talk pages check out Wikitravel:Using talk pages.
To me, who's never been to Disney land, let alone to Florida or California, this is still one of the icons that I know about, unfortunately those two CC licensed picture are not perfect, adequate I guess, but I think this should be included in the guide, it would be even better if someone have a good photograph hidden away on their hard drive somewhere though. --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 17:40, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
Unfortunately, I'm afraid there might be licensing issues for any images of the water tower that show the logo. I'm nervous enough about the Sorcerer's Hat, but consensus on Wikimedia Commons seemed to be that it was okay because it was a structure. (The water tower is also a structure, of course, but a logo pasted upon it is not.) LtPowers 18:26, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
So I was bored today and tooling around here and over at WikiPedia. There is a Commons file of the tower that is being used on the earful tower page on WikiPedia.  Not sure if it's something that can be used here, but just putting it out there. --Hawkeyefla 17:12, 2 January 2012 (EST)
Thanks. That's an obvious copyright violation, though, so I've nominated it for deletion. LtPowers 11:41, 3 January 2012 (EST)
I believe everything in this section of Walt Disney World is now covered. This is somewhat of a test case, as your comments here on what might be missing will hopefully make it easier to get the other WDW articles up to star quality. I'm a little worried if the prose is up to snuff, but I tried to make it as engaging as possible. It has a full map and I'm trusting my grammar skills not to have missed anything obvious. I'm available to make changes as necessary. LtPowers 17:03, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
Support - I'm pretty impressed with this, and it seems like most reservations brought up at the last round (before distrification) has been addressed, especially with the great map! Get all the districts up to snuff, and we might start luring in a new demographic to our quest for world domination, google willing. --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 17:26, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
Support. I'm impressed exponentially with this. I'm positively sure that a Star nomination for this article will push both the main Walt Disney World article and all the other subarticles towards being Stars. Jonathan 784 22:27, 5 July 2009 (EDT)
I'm not sure about the '$', '$$', symbols on food and drink. I don't think that is what we currently use for price ranges, is it?
I see the red hands, but I have to refer to the stay safe section in a different article for the rules? What if I just printed out this one for my day at this park?
I don't like the merged See/Do sections. Surely there are some things in the park to be seen - shows etc, and other things to be done - rides etc, according to our criteria. Why merge them here?
I think exclamation marks are a little overdone - too many for one article, and I think words like pretty cool, and neat, sound a little odd, without really meaning much.
Some parts read a bit like a Disney brochure. We don't refer to the traveller as a guest in other articles, should we here? Star Tours an experience like no other for Star Wars fans? Hmmm.. - perhaps in the 80's. --inas 00:38, 6 July 2009 (EDT)
I've gone back and forth on them. There are pros and cons both ways. The pro side is that these match up with what guests will see in their guide maps at the park, and they make it easy to tell at a glance how expensive a place is. It wouldn't be hard to go through and replace them with price ranges if deemed necessary.
You could make that argument for a lot of things, like the Advance Dining Reservations, weather tips, Fastpass, etc., which would mean duplicating large portions of Walt Disney World in each of the five district articles. We could do it, but it would become a nightmare to maintain. I thought we usually tried to not duplicate information where possible.
Brief discussion occurred at Talk:Walt Disney World#See/Do. Shows are, strictly speaking, under "Do" along with rides according to our criteria, so the See sections would be rather barren. It would also disrupt the grouping by area organization. Still, this is something that could be done if deemed necessary.
I was starting to run out of adjectives. Specific suggestions for replacements are welcome.
Strictly speaking, the statement about Star Tours is true, 80s or otherwise. There are no other Star Wars theme park rides, certainly not in a motion simulator. As for your first comment, I'm not sure what you mean. Parts of the Chicago guide read like a Chicago brochure, too. With similar goals, that would seem to be inevitable, wouldn't it?
I think a star article should adhere to our policy, and be an example which we want to be copied and emulated. Perhaps we want this article to align with the Disney guide, but if we do, I think it should remain a guide. To become a star it should exemplify our guide style. I think this reasoning applies to the joint See/Do, and the prices as $$ signs. Maybe they are a good idea here, but do we want that style deployed widely? If not, we shouldn't use it in a star article - at least until there are enough stars to make it clear that this is an exception.
I'm not saying the article shouldn't advocate visiting the park. I just think referring to visitors, travellers, us, as guests sounds like a guide produced by the company. I don't think the Chicago guide sounds like it is written by Chicago tourist info.
I was just giving Star Tours as an example, but saying that it is an experience like no other for Star Wars fans has an implication far greater than the fact that it is the only Star Wars licensed ride, IMO. --inas 07:19, 6 July 2009 (EDT)
Most "unofficial" guidebooks published by third-party publishers (Fodors, Frommers, etc.) also use the $-$$$$ system for dining prices. Let me also point out that WDW's official price range system consists of four parts, not three.
It's very unlikely that someone will actually print the page out and bring it to the park, considering the fact that park maps are given away for free. Also look at it this way: I wouldn't want to bring my Lonely Planet guidebook or my laptop computer with me into the park -- it would be way too much of a burden. In other words, the purpose of the article is to provide planning information before you set out, not during your trip. Jonathan 784 10:42, 6 July 2009 (EDT)
Regarding your comment, "What if I just printed out this one for my day at this park?" If you did so, the map would be too small to read, so you would have no other choice but to enlarge the map and print it separately. Same goes for sections in the main article. Jonathan 784 11:04, 6 July 2009 (EDT)
Not sure. It is a great guide for sure, and I'm willing to overlook some of the things Inas commented on (the '$$' symbols and combined See/Do section don't bother me so much, considering we are talking about a theme park setting and these will probably be the best way to handle them in cases like this), but I think Inas hit the nail on the head when he talked about the tone of the guide. The caption for the first picture is a good example: "The giant Sorcerer's Hat tells you that you've entered a place where the magic of film is brought to life." It really does read like a Disney brochure to me. But then again, I'm not really the kind of person who would go to Disney World, so I wonder if the tone is appropriate considering the audience who will read this guide (specifically, patrons of Disney theme parks). Still, I feel like we could tone down the promotional-sounding language, while still making the language lively. PerryPlanetTalk 13:32, 6 July 2009 (EDT)
I'm not sure I fully understand what you're getting at. Is there a good example of prose in the article that you could point out and I could emulate? LtPowers 22:09, 7 July 2009 (EDT)
I just read through the article and although the caption under the Sorcerer Hat and the one under the 13-floor drop ride are a bit cheesy, the prose within the text doesn't seem promotional to me. It's definitely not completely positive and glossy. I've never been to Disney, but the article does mention when attractions are not quite as advertised/expected. The possible let-downs and shortcomings are there. Inas may have a point about the "See and Do" thing, since it has been changed on other pages that have put them together, but it reads fine to me. ChubbyWimbus 22:44, 7 July 2009 (EDT)
I think ChubbyWimbus put it best as "cheesy". There are many good examples of prose in the guide, but I'm not sure which one I would pull out to use as an example. Maybe I would change that photo caption to "Just as in Fantasia before it, the appearance of the Sorcerer's Hat means you're about to experience the magic of film." Although that sounds cheesy too, but hey, it's a thought. After another scan of the article, I'm at a lost to suggest how to improve it, which probably means there isn't much to improve. I'll change my vote to support. PerryPlanetTalk 17:22, 8 July 2009 (EDT)
My intent is to make the best article I can, so I don't want to seem as if I'm browbeating anyone with excuses just to get them to Support. I will keep a lookout for less-than-sparkling text, but some guidance really would be helpful. =) LtPowers 19:28, 8 July 2009 (EDT)
You're not browbeating me, I'm just at a lost to provide guidance, because I keep running into the brick wall of "this is a theme park". I'm used to dealing with cities or national parks, but everything that makes sense in those cases just seems to hit the wall here. PerryPlanetTalk 22:30, 8 July 2009 (EDT)
Constructive Points: Great work, its come a long way in short time. Since our Stars are the revered models for imitation, I have some minor points for improvement.
Aesthetically, I don't like to ever see a full screen of all text. I realize that's not a quantifiable policy, but my first impression is that more pictures would make me more interested in the content. I think one picture per Section is a worthy goal (excluding Drink and Sleep). Also, the existing photos could be larger than thumb size to be more engaging (specifically Sci-Fi dine in theater, I have to click on it to tell what it is). Other iconic images that might be helpful are ones for the Muppets or Star Tours.
Structure wise, how come Get Out is missing? I think it would be helpful even if it was a condensed, albeit perfunctory, reminder of the Get In info, with links to the other parks. --Jtesla16 18:53, 8 July 2009 (EDT)
I have to be very careful with pictures due to copyright concerns. A picture of the big Kermit balloon attached to the top of the Muppet*Vision 3-D building, for instance, would be a derivative work of the illustration on the balloon. Not to mention potential character trademark issues. I probably should try to find a picture of one of the resorts, though.
As for image size, I thought it was considered best practice to not specify a size for thumbnails except where necessary; this allows users to set their preferred thumbnail size. If the images are too small for you, you can change your thumbnail size in your preferences.
Get Out is missing because it's largely redundant with the Districts and Get Around sections of the parent article. The Wikitravel:District article template doesn't even contain a Get Out section, so it seems that it's generally not needed. Besides, our guidelines generally advise against duplicating information within an article; they specifically say that Get Out should not just duplicate information from Get In. If you had something different in mind, by all means, let me know. =)
I think there is justification to enlarge the images in this case, and exercise the exception. Most anon Users will have the default thumb setting, and for them the images won't look like an integrated part of the article. I think if the image isn't clear at default thumb size, there is room within the policy to specify a size that works. --Jtesla16 20:03, 8 July 2009 (EDT)
Looks great! If you're able to avoid the copyright issues, I'd like to see a couple more images too, to make it visually complete. --Jtesla16 21:47, 8 July 2009 (EDT)
Update: I have added additional pictures, revised some of the wording, and replaced the dollar signs with actual price ranges. Please re-review and comment. LtPowers 19:44, 9 July 2009 (EDT)
Oppose. A couple, relatively easy-to-fix obstacles:
1) I think the trivia section should go. I'm pretty sure I just deleted one elsewhere, this is definitely not an established practice, and the Wikipedia experience was that these proliferate fast, with little benefit to the articles. (Trivia sections tend to be an excuse to substitute travel writing with lazier bulleted lists.) Plenty of good information there, which should be easy to move to listing descriptions, section introductions, or the understand section proper (I think the MM Club info is already there, in fact).
2) "prices vary" should be converted to a price range. I'm pretty sure the only instance was the Championship Stadium.
3) "lunch, dinner" should be converted to hours. That's a standard WT policy that I find very useful. My apologies if resort-wide hours for meals is already covered in the main article, if such standards exist. If they are all the same within this "district," then that should be noted in the "eat" section introduction.
I have a couple other non-critical questions/suggestions.
First, Street names here are overwhelmingly non-abbreviated, although we have decided to use St, Ave, Blvd, etc. instead of full names. At a Disney resort, though, perhaps the names are thoroughly considered proper names, which should always be spelled out? Second, the get around section is very long, and seems redundant given the map—perhaps it could be cut down (significantly)? Also, there are a couple referrals to the "Times Guide." Apologies if this too has already been discussed, but other (often competing) guides are the last thing that we want to refer to people—our guides are supposed to be fully self-sufficient. I'm not sure what the Times Guide is, exactly, but is there another option that doesn't refer readers to another guide (if it is a guide)? --PeterTalk 17:14, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
1) The trivia section is Jonathan's, I'm ambivalent on it myself. It was originally an infobox; would it work better in that form?
I'll revert it back to an infobox. The reason I put it in the main text was because the main text area was blank. Jonathan 784 00:22, 13 July 2009 (EDT)
2) Yeah, prices at Champion's stadium "vary" because there's a bunch of different events that go on there. I was unable to find prices for the Braves' preseason games at all, mainly because there aren't any more until next spring. I could list GCL Braves ticket prices but that might be misleading. I can try to revise it to list the different events as separate listings if that would help.
3) I believe hours, as far as the line between breakfast/lunch and between lunch/dinner, are uniform throughout WDW, but the real problem is that the exact opening and closing times vary with the park hours. So, for instance, on days when the Magic Kingdom is open until 7pm, all of the restaurants that serve dinner will be open until about 7pm, but on days when the Magic Kingdom is open until 9pm, the restaurants will also be open later. In that respect, for any restaurant that serves breakfast or dinner (which is virtually all of them), their operating hours vary. I could use "park open-park close" but is that more useful than "Breakfast, lunch, dinner"? I don't know.
4) Re: Abbrevations. It had been my understanding that abbreviations were only needed in listings, but it appears I may have been mistaken. That said, I think an argument could be made for the areas of Hollywood Studios that are named after roads. They're not really streets themselves, just themed as such. Certainly the name of one of the stores on Sunset is Sunset Boulevard Shops, not Sunset Blvd. Shops. =) For the areas themselves, I can go either way, but I think the prose looks better with them spelled out. I note that existing star article Along the Magnificent Mile does not consistently abbreviate, so there is some precedent.
5) Get Around is only five paragraphs. It looks long because the map is so big. I think it's important to describe the lay of the land, so to speak, even if only for people who cannot see the map.
6) The Times Guide is a weekly publication from Disney listing parade and show times for each park. There is no possible way we or any other guide could present this information to the traveler. I should perhaps explain that somewhere in the article, if it's unclear. Suggestions for where to put the explanation are welcome.
I agree with the WP policy, I don't see why trivia can't be integrated into the article, rather than kept separate. Those sort of asides make for good, readable travel writing—spread them out! I think it's fine to give a wide, approximate price spread for the stadium events. If you're having trouble figuring out what the range should be, give 'em a call. I assume the main article's understand section would be the best place—a brief "Visitor information" section is pretty standard.
I think using "open" and "close" for park opening/closing should be fine. If lunch follows a set time, say 11AM-2PM, you could use "open-2PM" or "11AM-close" for the hours fields. (On this topic, I can't find the actual park hours for WDW anywhere in the main article.) If lunch doesn't follow a set time, then all the more reason to nail down the opening/closing times. This issue is not hugely important, but star status entails a level of polish that leaves no smudge.
Oh, and the abbreviations policy came about after that article was written—it's an artifact, not a precedent ;) --PeterTalk 23:57, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
Park hours vary daily, and the weekly schedule varies seasonally, and the park hours are only set by Disney 2-3 months in advance. I don't think it's possible to represent that in the articles, beyond perhaps a general statement of same. Wikitravel:Abbreviations doesn't seem to require that abbreviations always be used without fail. Certainly we don't always abbreviate "United States of America" or "United Kingdom". For the others I'll see what I can do. LtPowers 08:28, 13 July 2009 (EDT)
I've made several revisions to the text. See Wikitravel talk:Abbreviations#Scope for a discussion on abbreviation requirements. I'm still working on trying to track down hours for the restaurants; they are extremely hard to find. Is that the last thing needed for your support, Peter? LtPowers 12:07, 13 July 2009 (EDT)
Yes, that's the only remaining substantive objection I have. I figured the restaurant hours would be hard to find, given the nature of the destination. At least the people you'd have to talk to speak English though—damned if I'll ever get the hours for those hole-in-the-wall pupuserías in DC... --PeterTalk 23:52, 15 July 2009 (EDT)
At this point, I'm not certain that hours are consistent enough to put into our listings, but I'll keep looking. LtPowers 10:13, 16 July 2009 (EDT)
I found hours for most of the restaurants, although I can't personally vouch for accuracy. The one I couldn't find is the Wide World of Sports Cafe, but I suspect that's because hours vary widely depending on when events are scheduled; I can't see them keeping it open if there are no events. I hope the article now meets with your approval -- I'm still ready and willing to make further adjustments as necessary. LtPowers 21:21, 19 July 2009 (EDT)
Yep, looks great! Support. Nice work on this—paving new ground is tough. --PeterTalk 21:47, 19 July 2009 (EDT)
The article reads much better now. I like the tone. I just think the one phone number should be consistent, and we should resolve the See/Do vs See and Do on the article templates just to make sure this article is an example of the right way to do it. I support. --inas 05:49, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
Great, thanks. Can I ask which phone number you mean? LtPowers 09:41, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
Just did the phone number. The DC stars use an ampersand instead of slash. Personally, I think spell out and in full. --inas 23:49, 30 July 2009 (EDT)
I'm fine with any of the three, but we should discuss it somewhere more central. It's nothing that can't be easily changed once we make a final decision, fortunately. LtPowers 10:13, 31 July 2009 (EDT)
Promoted. Thanks for your comments and support! LtPowers 17:15, 17 August 2009 (EDT)