i think it would be a good idea to get rid of that quote at the top of the page - it doesn't add anything, it would be more suitable for a wikiPEDIA - not wikiTRAVEL
if i don't hear back soon, i'll go ahead and delete it
What's wrong with it? I think it sets the tone pretty nicely. Jpatokal 11:58, 9 February 2008 (EST)
when you first read the artical, it does look like the wikipage people are familiar with. there is nothing wrong with it, it would just be easier to read, and recognise, if is wasn't there. maybe a large "Walt Disney World" logo, would be better?
In case you don't know your history, that quote is the park's opening day dedication. The articles for Disneyland, Tokyo Disney Resort, and Disneyland Paris also have their dedications on them.
This article needs pictures.
Please don't create an article for each part of Disneyworld. If you really must put the information on seperate pages - once it gets too big -- use subpages. Thanks! -- Nils 06:13, 18 Apr 2004 (EDT)
I think that the changes made by User Speedway to the Disneyworld article read like marketing hype and sound like a copyright violation of a Disneyworld marketing site. I also think the article is worse now than before and I am seriously thinking about reverting it to the previous text. User Speedway Is this all your own work or copied from another website? -- Huttite 22:01, 31 Dec 2004 (EST)
I have now reverted the page because of the content on WikiPedia, where User Speedway has also been editing. There may be helpful information in User Speedway's version of Disneyworld, which is in the page history if anyone is interested in mining it for information. -- Huttite 22:22, 31 Dec 2004 (EST)
The incessant use of specific historical dates certainly tagged it as odd. I was concerned that it might be some kind of copyvio, but I wasn't sure what exactly -- it's certainly not written in the usual style for this site. -- Colin 04:21, 1 Jan 2005 (EST)
OK. I visited the Disneyworld Wikitravel site, and it was crap. OK, I'm not saying mine was 'better', but it certainly held more information for someone planning a visit to Disneyworld. The 'incessent use of specific historical dates certainly tagged it as odd'. Hmm? In what way? That you think I've copied someone? I would apologise to you for knowing so much about WDW but that would be foolish. This is not an article Wikipedia, this is a travellers guide. For gods sake the title isn't even right. The old article (and now the 'new' one) both read like something from Wikipedia so anyone who is accusing me of treating this like another Wikipedia is just making up excuses because they don't like their work being revised. OK then;
If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here.
Well obviously you lot fall into this category. I see a lot of people like this on Wikipedia, attached to 'their' articles. And before you accuse me of writing this because I don't like you getting rid of 'my' version, I am writing this to show you what it looks like from someone else's perspective. You lot do look pretty sad. You can keep your 'Disneyworld' article, and I will stick with my 'Walt Disney World' article on Wikipedia - where people are open to change and are not convinced their work is suitable.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource
Everything in that article - as much as it may seem like marketing hype - is from the brain of moi, except names and telephone numbers.
What would any of you get from this site if you were planning a WDW trip? Probably **** all. :) Speedway 12:12, 1 Jan 05
I side with Speedway on this one and have reverted to his version (minus a couple of Huttite's cosmetic fixes); frankly, Huttite, I think you owe Speedway an apology for accusations of copyvio without pointing out where it's taken from. There's nothing wrong with being enthusiastic about a place, feel free to edit it down if you think it goes overboard. Jpatokal 09:00, 1 Jan 2005 (EST)
I am sorry that my merciless editing has upset Speedway. I do think that Speedway's article has some merits, which is why I made it easy to find, however the changes that were made to the previous article, to me, seemed to lose the value of the original. Wikitravel articles have a more structured format compared to the free writing style of Wikipedia. I tried to see how the two versions could be merged but the writing style was just too different to do it justice. I felt that I had to go back and start over, merging the two articles step by step. I had a look at the other Disneyland articles and the style and structure of Speedway's article was radically different. If anyone can add value and enhance what was already there, I welcome it. -- Huttite 14:43, 1 Jan 2005 (EST)
I don't understand why I'm asked to apologise here and my username is cited repeatedly in connection with an article I've never edited. I assume Jpatokal mean "frankly Huttite, I think you owe Speedway an apology..." otherwise I honestly have no idea what's going on. Hypatia 23:25, 1 Jan 2005 (EST)
Ooops, I tell a lie, I did edit it once. I seriously doubt my minor changes on 8 Nov are so shocking as to require an apology though ;) Hypatia 23:27, 1 Jan 2005 (EST)
Mea culpa on this one, too many people with 7-letter handles starting with H here 8) Jpatokal 01:27, 2 Jan 2005 (EST)
Here are some examples of copyvios
Jump into your time rover and zip back 65 million years to the age of the dinosaurs and try and save one of the last of these prehistoric beasts.
Original is "Jump into your time rover and zoom back 65 million years to come face-to-face with dinosaurs as you try to rescue one of these prehistoric beasts." 
the lush green island is your departure point for excursions into the different realms of the park
Original is "This lush green island is your departure point for excursions into the different realms of the Park" . Note that captialization and grammar make more sense in the original.
Open your eyes to the world around you
Original is "open your eyes to the world around you" 
I'm sure I could easily find more of these if I try. Probably even better examples. So I suspect Speedway is copying and rewriting slightly sentences from some kind of brochure which incorporates Disney text, but it might not be an online source.
So here's my view on all this: Speedway is interested and capable of writing stuff about Disneyworld. I would love to see him do so. But he can't just copy and paste catchphrases even if he rewords them a little bit. These catchphrases' obvious source in marketing literature is what set off both Huttites worry about marketese and my worry about copyvio.
So Speedway, are you willing to rewrite stuff so that it is completely in your words? I think it's fair enough to copy the names of the rides from the original documentation, but the descriptions need to be 100% Speedway. Don't worry if your descriptions are imperfect. We want your text, no matter that it isn't as pretty as the Disney text! -- Colin 15:33, 1 Jan 2005 (EST)
Sorry, you seem to have a really good argument but I can't understand about. Did I copy something from Disney? Can you show me it, was it online? Have you got the URL because I am quite interested in this. Well you seem to be correct with all the arguments you've put in, I'm not saying your wrong. But I can assure you I wrote this revision over a period of four days on Microsoft Word and the only information I went on to the Internet for was telephone numbers and extra recreation. Speedway 13:27 2 Jan 05
Is it possible you were working from brochures or books as references, and those phrases came from the written material? -- Colin 13:32, 2 Jan 2005 (EST)
No it's not. It may be possible that I have read such brochures in the past, but the only park I visited when I last went to WDW was Magic Kingdom so the examples you cite seem to have expired. The website that you take the examples from seems to be a very good site though, thanks! Speedway 18:10 4 Jan 05 (EST)
Change to Walt Disney World Resort
Whoever the admins are here should allow people to actually start articles and actually make this site a Wiki. This needs to be changed to Walt Disney World Resort. The current name just shows the ignorance of its creator. --Evanwohrman 04:57, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)
Hmm? Any logged-in user can move pages, just click on Edit and then the Move tab. And you can create new pages by clicking on any red link.
However, please tell us why the article should be moved. Wikitravel uses the most common name, which is not necessarily the same thing as the "official" name. Jpatokal 05:19, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)
Is it most commonly known as 'Disneyworld'? Even if it is, most people know it is two separate words, like 'Disney World'. Eurgh. Speedway 16:55, 29 Mar 2005
In the US, it's called Disneyworld. And it's pronounced as if there were no space between Disney and World. -- Colin 14:57, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)
On second thought, I wonder if I'm showing my California bias. Disneyland really is called "Disneyland" and not "Disney Land" by DisneyCorp. Maybe my familiarity with the California theme park name is clouding my judgment on dealing with Disneyworld, which the Disney Corporate Masters call "Disney World". -- Colin 15:01, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)
The Florida resort is Walt Disney World Resort, no matter what it's commonly called. --126.96.36.199 15:24, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)
We name our articles with the most commonly used names (see Wikitravel:Article naming conventions). For the purpose of naming articles, the Official Name of the place is irrelevant. Since no one actually says "Walt Disney World Resort" to refer to the place in normal conversaion, there is zero chance of us naming the article "Walt Disney World Resort". -- Colin 17:01, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)
Hey, fanboy's back! I think the name should be "Disney World", because that's what people call it. I can also live with "Walt Disney World". But Walt Disney World Resort just sounds like a used piece of Kleenex brand toilet paper.
Google results: disney.world 2,260,000, walt.disney.world 1,370,000, disneyworld 536,000, walt.disney.world.resort 309,000 Jpatokal 11:55, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)
In common usage, if a company is named "foo world", then they usually run the mess together as a compound word like "fooworld". Computerworld. Businessworld. I think it's idomatic, not an actual rule. So the most-common usage is the original title.... Disneyworld. -- Colin 14:55, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)
Err, according to Google (see above), "Disney World" beats "Disneyworld" 4:1... Jpatokal 21:27, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)
My fault for correcting myself higher on this talk page and not deleting the comment you're replying to. -- Colin 23:09, 29 Mar 2005 (EST)
Reasoning behind the naming convention
Hi Speedway, I'd just like to take a moment to jump in here to try to explain why the Wikitravel:Article naming conventions is what it is. The main reason we mostly use Common names instead of Official names is that the common name makes the article easier for a traveller to find.
If you type the exact name of a destination into the search box over on the left, and hit "Go" the Mediawiki software will send you to the destination page. If it's not exact you'll get a list to pick from. So what we want to do is to try to make the most typed search term for Disney World the name of the article. That way when a traveller is trying to find the article it will work right away.
Colin and Jani seem to think that "Disney World" is more likely to be the thing that a traveller searches for. If they are right - and I think they might just be - then that's what the name of the article should be. It would also make sense to have redirects from some other likely search terms such as "Disneyworld" and probably the official name too, though I don't really imagine somebody typing that whole thing out.
Anyhow, one way or the other I'd like to say that we really appreciate your efforts in helping us to make this a more complete guide, and I'm certain that travellers who do find and use the Disney World article will very much appreciate your work. -- Mark 01:14, 30 Mar 2005 (EST)
Right, fine. Change it back. OK, I accept it. This is how Wikitravel works. No problems. Speedway 12:39, 30 Mar 2005
Redirecting is easy enough. Just redirected Walt Disney World and I see someone already redirected Walt Disney World Resort. Seems easy enough and should please everyone, true?
The off-resort lodging section of this article is starting to look a bit... suspect is I guess a fair word. Given that anything not actually in Disney World could be considered "off-resort", would it make more sense to simply list a few of the closest towns that people stay in as alternatives to actually staying at Disney World, similar to what we've done with Yosemite#Nearby? I'm not personally that familiar with Disney World, but perhaps someone who is could make this change? -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:42, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
I believe the lodging should be moved into Lake Buena Vista which exists as a separate article. Although that City "belongs" to the Disney corporation, much of it lies outside of the "Park" itself. gamweb 13:34, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Probably the only off-resort lodging that should be in this article is the stuff on Resort Drive, near Downtown Disney. Even then, you could make a reasonable argument for putting those in Lake Buena Vista. Anything across I-4 or farther up International Drive, and certainly anything in Kissimmee, should be in other articles. LtPowers 19:17, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
I tend to think that having any accommodations listings present that are not actually located within the geographic area described in the article title is a bad idea—they draw spam like a magnet. Now that the article is districted, this is even more important IMO, to make it clear that these sections of the overview article are for general prose, not listings. Barring objections, I'll move them to Lake Buena Vista (or wherever is appropriate), and leave a note in the sleep section pointing to that article for off-resort lodging. --PeterTalk 15:04, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
How much are the ticket prices? 188.8.131.52 16:07, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
The recommendation of Wikitravel is to consider Park Hopper. I would like to see both sides discussed. Anyone new going to Disney World will soon discover that it's impossible to see or do everything at one park in one day. For the most tickets it doesn't make sense to "hop" around and pay extra for that option. It's simply marketing.
Indeed, it is impossible to see or do everything at one park in one day. That's precisely what makes the Park Hopper option so valuable. When one day at the Magic Kingdom isn't enough, but two is too much, what does one do for the rest of the second day? Why one heads to Epcot to pick up a few World Showcase attractions they missed before, of course. The Park Hopper option also facilitates the necessary flexibility in dining options. For anything more than a three-day stay, the Park Hopper option is cheap enough to be well worth the cost. LtPowers 19:17, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Push for Star
This article is very deserving of being a Star article. Please review it, make the necessary adjustments, and support a nomination! —The preceding comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) .
Hi! Have you considered registering for an account? You've done a lot of work on this article and it'd be nice to be able to talk to you about it, but your changing IP address makes it hard. LtPowers 18:42, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
9/4/04 - I have added a new infobox to the article. Now we can discuss a potential Star nomination.
Well do you think it's ready or not? If you think it's ready, nominate it. Otherwise, what do you think is missing? LtPowers 16:24, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure how useful it is to have the shopping grouped by park the way it is now. I would expect travelers to want to know where they can find certain merchandise, not what merchandise is available in a certain place. LtPowers 16:41, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
It was claimed in the Star discussion that the Buy section didn't meet the manual of style. That was the best I could do, after reviewing the Buy sections in other Star articles. If you feel that this section needs to be improved more, go ahead.
User:Jonathan_784 18 September 2008 11:37 CDT
If/when districted, the buy listings will need to be separated by park. The buy section should then be rewritten, and information regarding specific categories of shopping and where to find it can be included there as an overview. --PeterTalk 20:40, 30 March 2009 (EDT)
Name, yet again
How, after all the discussion above, did a user get away with moving this to its official name, rather than most common name, back in March? Hmm – cacahuatetalk 14:48, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, I guess Colin's assessment of the odds was a little off. :P I think it was gotten away with because it doesn't matter a whole lot one way or the other (thanks to redirects). LtPowers 15:34, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
Okay, here is what I did: I removed the Read subsection under Understand and replaced it with a new subsection called What's in a name? explaining why the "correct" name of the resort is Walt Disney World. So now, you may do one of two things:
The name "Walt Disney World Resort" stays as is, or:
The "Resort" goes, but the "Walt" stays right where it is, leaving the name "Walt Disney World".
Go ahead and make the change. In the meantime, I'll try to find a picture of an object bearing the name "Walt Disney World" to put in the "What's in a name?" section. I'm thinking it should be something like a t-shirt or a popcorn box - any suggestions? One more thing: do you think "What's in a name?" is too bulky a title? If so, I'll shorten it. Jonathan 784 19:41, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
Why did you remove the "Read" section? I'm also undecided on the necessity of the "Name" section. It seems superfluous in an article that's already very long. LtPowers 10:04, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
See the Star discussion. Everyone seemed to be against it. You even said yourself that it could go if necessary. Meanwhile, I'll try to find a way to fuse the information in the infobox and the new "What's in a name?" section together. Jonathan 784 10:22, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
All right, I restored the Read section and moved the new information into the infobox. How's that? Jonathan 784 10:35, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
I just want some discussion one way or the other. Neither my comment on the star nomination nor my comment here should be seen as a demand for one course of action or another. It's called trying to open up some discussion. The "Read" section is not well documented in Wikitravel's policies and I was hoping a discussion would shed some light on exactly what material belongs there. LtPowers 18:58, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
Regarding the read section, this is as close as we are to a policy on how to use the section. And I think leaving out recommendations to read other travel literature has always been policy on the site—we want the information here, not simply linked. I don't know of any books (or films) that would be "culturally relevant" for a trip to Disney World—any novels or major movies set in the park? --PeterTalk 19:15, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
Good question, Peter. I do know that the movie "Marvin's Room" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116999/) has a scene set at Walt Disney World, but it is of very little relevance to the main plot of the film. That's why I didn't include it when I initially established the subsection titled "Watch". Jonathan 784 21:40, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
OK, I kind of just punted because the "Read" section is not well documented (outside of a clear consensus of intent in the talk pages you linked). However, it is important to note that some of those guides do include information that I don't think we should be trying to keep as meticulously up-to-date as would be necessary. I would welcome discussion of what to do about that.
As for books or films, the only one I can think of offhand is The Kingdom Keepers by Ridley Pearson. LtPowers 19:29, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
Back to the name though, lets move this back to Walt Disney World. The "Resort" bit really is a violation of Wikitravel:Article naming conventions, which states that we prefer the most common English name to official titles. If the article is to meet star status in the future, even minor policy infractions like that can hold up a nomination. Since there seems to be consensus above on this already, I'll just give this a day for objections, but please keep in mind that an objection requires a policy rationale to have much weight. --PeterTalk 15:14, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
And lo it is done. --PeterTalk 17:50, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
There seems to be something wrong with the images - they don't show up onscreen. What's going on? Jonathan 784 19:39, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
The images are back! I'm both relieved and baffled at the same time - I still don't get what happened. Jonathan 784 17:07, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
In this edit, I recommended that the current star nomination be put on the slush pile for the time being. Several issues were raised in the nomination discussion, and I think they should be dicsussed here, not there. I will create subsections for them below. LtPowers 11:47, 15 November 2008 (EST)
PerryPlanet mentioned a lot of standard information was missing from the Sleep, Buy, and Eat sections. Is this still a problem? LtPowers 11:47, 15 November 2008 (EST)
The "Read" section
I included several other travel guides in here because I didn't think this guide could ever fully compete with them in comprehensiveness. I recognize now that this was probably mistaken, but if so, it means that this guide is going to have to be divided up into several different pages, possibly dozens of different pages. There is still an issue of how much detail to include in this guide, though. Should we include full restaurant menus as AllEars.net does? LtPowers 11:47, 15 November 2008 (EST)
I just updated the "Play" section. I took out the descriptions of long out-of-print video games and replaced them with a description and link to Google Earth's new comprehensive, 3-D exploration program. This might be enough to render the "Read" section useless, but I'll leave that up to you. Jonathan 784 16:23, 22 December 2008 (EST)
The main WDW map has some labeling issues. I will be working on this probably when I get some time. LtPowers 11:47, 15 November 2008 (EST)
Yep, you're right. Two hotels are in the wrong places. Jonathan 784 19:12, 17 November 2008 (EST)
I have modified the map and uploaded the new version; it should now be showing in the article. LtPowers 19:46, 20 November 2008 (EST)
Good work LT, but I have a question. I read that there really isn't a point, as they give out free maps anyways, why would they use one from WT? I am not trying to make your work mean nothing, I am just wondering, what is the point? Keep smiling,edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 19:54, 20 November 2008 (EST).
Because the maps are given out at the resort, while Wikitravel maps might be used in planning before the traveler's trip even begins. LtPowers 22:16, 20 November 2008 (EST)
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.
I just added a new infobox regarding interactive maps that can be downloaded onto cell phones starting next year. The news article (in its entirety) I copied may be found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27686891/Jonathan 784 10:01, 21 November 2008 (EST)
You'll have to re-write it in your own words. You can't just copy the article wholesale. If you really want to quote the press release, make it a short excerpt -- a couple of sentences at most. LtPowers 16:32, 21 November 2008 (EST)
The "Buy" section
I'm still not convinced that a geographic format is the best way to organize these, but I suppose it'll become necessary if we "districtify" the article. LtPowers 11:47, 15 November 2008 (EST)
I just added a new link, to the Shopping page of the WDW website, to the Buy section. It also employs a geographic format, so I guess this section is OK as it is. Jonathan 784 23:50, 5 January 2009 (EST)
Sertmann mentioned issues with the layout of the page -- infoboxes and pictures crowded together, for instance. Is this still a problem? LtPowers 11:47, 15 November 2008 (EST)
Yes, actually most of them - but I'm on a weird resolution 1680x1050, if no one else is having problems I'll forfeit my argument. --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 19:06, 20 November 2008 (EST)
As I mentioned in my proposal to add the nom to the slush pile, if we really want our guide to WDW to be competitive with commercial guides, then we have little choice but to make it book-length. That means, minimally, a page for each of the six parks, plus Downtown Disney. It might even mean a page for each "land" within each park. It also means detailed descriptions of each attraction within the park, along with every restaurant (with menu) and shop. Is, in fact, this level of detail what we want for our travel guide? If it is, we're a long, long, long, long, long, long way from star. LtPowers 11:47, 15 November 2008 (EST)
Good idea. This might help to make the "Get around" section a lot more specific. Also, I think that the two water parks and the two shopping/dining/entertainment districts are closely related, and should share a page. Titles would be "Walt Disney World/Water Parks" and "Walt Disney World/Downtown Disney and Disney's Boardwalk". Jonathan 784 19:12, 17 November 2008 (EST)
I'll throw my two cents in and say, yes, this article should be districtified. What you guys have written here already is awesome, and is useful info, but I just can't see myself using it if I went to Disney World. I'd want a guide that goes into really deep detail, and for Wikitravel, this means districts. And after that is done, and the WDW article gets the star? That would be a huge plume in Wikitravel's hat. :-) --Tallytalk 18:54, 20 November 2008 (EST)
For what it's worth, while i'm generally leaning against distrifications unless absolutely necessary, I think this article could benefit from it - provided someone is willing to follow through on this, and get the districts/area's up to snuff, instead of the half arsed work we so all too often. --Stefan (sertmann)Talk 19:10, 20 November 2008 (EST)
I agree with Stefan. One thing is that you should make sure someone will actually organise the stuff into districts because a lot are districted then the stuff that was overflowing was moved and the all stuff is left over. You should definitely make sure of that. I'd rather it be Albuquerque or Stockholm as opposed to the incomplete Houston and Rome (no offense). Of course there are good districted ones, the most famous, Chicago. So make sure it is absolutely neccessary, and, if so, make sure some one will be up for the job. Thatss all! Keep smiling,edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 19:15, 20 November 2008 (EST).
I definitely agree with districting WDW, the WDW article is already pretty long, I think it could benefit from a little division. If I may, I think the water parks should be combined into other articles, I don't think they should be articles of their own - they don't have quite the Eat and Buy options that the big theme parks do, I don't think they'd make decent articles. I think we can get by five districts here: 1) Magic Kingdom, 2) Epcot (which would include the Disney Boardwalk), 3) Hollywood Studios, 4) Animal Kingdom, and 5) Downtown Disney (which would include Typhoon Lagoon). Not sure whether Blizzard Beach should go under Hollywood Studios or Animal Kingdom. PerryPlanetTalk 13:55, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
Blizzard Beach and Animal Kingdom share a bus route, so that's the most logical pairing. LtPowers 20:42, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
Yes. I think the Caribbean Beach Resort is usually included in the Epcot-area resorts, and maybe the same for Coronado Springs, but geographically your divisions seem to make more sense. I would also include Disney's Wide World of Sports complex (not marked on that map) in the Hollywood Studios district. LtPowers 10:41, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
Ah, good catch. I've updated the map. PerryPlanetTalk 12:17, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
Are these boundaries ready? If so, lets push forward and put these in the main article ASAP to leverage the cotm. --PeterTalk 15:46, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
There don't seem to be any objections, and the cotm is floundering without this basic organizational step. I say one more day and then lets do it. --PeterTalk 20:16, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
C'est accompli. LtPowers 09:28, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
Dress code rule necessary?
"The Walt Disney World Resort is a heavily themed environment whose world-renowned brand is woven into every element of the show. We reserve the right to exclude from all of our gated attractions Guests whose appearance could create a distraction to the show. Examples that might be considered as such include the following: Adult costumes or clothing that could be viewed as a costume (unless worn by a child underthe age of 10). Masks. Easily visible obscene or offensive language orgraphics. Excessively torn clothing. Clothing with offensive material.Clothing which, by nature, exposes excessive portions of the skin that may be viewed as inappropriate for a family environment. The goal of the Walt Disney World Resort is to provide a safe, secure environment for our Guests to enjoy the show and our Cast to deliver the show. To this end, all theme park guests are required to wear shirts and shoes atall times. Generally, swimsuit tops are allowed when worn with other appropriate garments." -- E-mail from Walt Disney World Guest Mail
Should we add this bit of information? Jonathan 784 20:13, 10 February 2009 (EST)
I'd think not ... it's pretty common-sense stuff. --OrlandoParkRat 19:34, 3 March 2009 (EST)
This article is very deserving of being a Star article. All of the sections are teeming with helpful information. User:Jonathan_784 9/4/2008
Comment: At first glance this article looks really impressive. Since we have never gone through this process for a non-city, non-park destination, this will be tricky. I'll read through it within a couple days (hopefully) and get back to you on this. Hopefully we can get some real discussion going on this article. --PeterTalk 17:34, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
Not quite there. My biggest problem with the article as it stands right now is that almost none of the listings follow our MoS. Most of the hotels listed do not have contact info, prices, location info, or any of the stuff that is required under our MoS, and the descriptions sound like they were pulled directly from the Disney website. The same goes for everything in the Eat and Buy sections. Now, granted we are talking about a theme park, so perhaps we can't get them to perfectly fit the MoS, but I feel like we can do better than this. PerryPlanet 12:04, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
Quick Critique: I gave this a 15 min speed read and...
Pros: I think overall this article is very good. Some of its sections seem really comprehensive...like "Stay safe." To its credit, it also makes use of things like info boxes, pictures, and warning boxes, and overall it seems pretty well formatted.
Cons: I agree with PerryPlanet above — most of the listings are incomplete per MoS. Also, most of them are not in alphabetical order. Not all addresses are abbreviated...e.g. uses "Street" not "St." The "Sleep" section on the map appears to be done well, but only six "See" and "Do" items are mapped, and none of the other sections are there at all? Also, in the "Read" section (and ostensibly throughout the article) it does mention a lot of other travel publications...is that standard? I would like to see a complete article here so that no further referral was necessary. It would be better perhaps to see more info on the "information centers" that were only passively mentioned. It would be nice to see them marked on the map as well. I wonder would a "Contact" section be appropriate here?
Decision: Good job, well done, but I think there is a lot of tidying up work left. Asterix 14:30, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
About the "Read" section: discuss this with the person who wrote that (User:LtPowers). But seriously, I think that section is helpful.
The Disney-branded hotels share a common reservations number (1-407-WDISNEY), and I have not been able to locate any individual addresses and phone numbers, so are those really necessary?
None of the shops or restaurants have contact information. That is fine as long as we know just their locations.
If you can, please make any adjustments as necessary, and I or anyone else can try to duplicate.
Per your request:
Disney's Caribbean Beach Resort, 900 Cayman Wy (off E Buena Vista Dr), ☎ +1 407 934-3400 (fax: +1 407 934-3288), . checkin: 3PM; checkout: 11AM. Enjoy the ambiance of the tropics in one of five "Island Villages."$134-$184.
Update: I have adjusted all the hotel listings to the best of my knowledge. I would appreciate it if you could plunge forward and add anything I may have missed.
Another update: I put all the Sleep listings in alphabetical order. Please redo the map to reflect the change, and expand its name to Walt Disney World Resort or just Walt Disney World - that is the name of the article, and it's cited in the infobox under "Understand."
I agree that this approaches star quality. I also had concerns about the "Read" section when Lt first put it in. His reasoning was that we would never cover in detail as well as the referenced sources. *shrug*. All hotels have phone numbers and all attractions have locations. I am concerned that we don't even describe locations e.g. "east side of park" "to the left of the main entrance".. whatever. I guess if we don't do that, perhaps the Read section is truly necessary. I don't like rushing to Star... it implies there's nothing left to do. OldPine 13:54, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
Another update: I redid the Buy section, but I know somehow that it isn't "complete" yet - please plunge forward.
User: LtPowers has voiced a concern over the "Buy" section. Please focus on this section
I haven't read through carefully yet, but this does look like a great article. But I'd be tempted to hold up the "starrification" until we have WT style maps of each park, with all attractions marked. --PeterTalk 14:41, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
I wasn't volunteering ;) And those maps are all copyrighted. --PeterTalk 20:28, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
Another update: The Magic Kingdom subsection now covers all the attractions! Let's finish all the others. User:Jonathan_784
On closer inspection, and based upon the last few comments, I now also think that we should hold off on starification. Articles are supposed to be at star level before they get onto this page. To my knowledge this page is for possible minor tweaks and fine tuning. It's clear now that the articles "completeness" cannot be verified, and there are also several more maps to be made -- no mean feat! There was also a question raised above about the source of the material that does not seem to have been addressed. Asterix 16:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
9/7/08 - I have finished the overhaul of the See and Do section, to the best of my ability. The Eat and Buy sections are now the only ones that need attention. But I'm at a loss as to what should be done - maybe all of you can help. No need to rush, let's at least make this a Star-quality article, if not Star itself. User:Jonathan_784
9/9/08 - After reviewing the Eat and Buy sections in several other Star articles, I think I may have a working knowledge of how to finally "finish" this article. It's going to take some time, though. Update 9/10/08: I have finally completed the expansion of the subsections that were in need of attention. Unless anyone says so otherwise, I will re-boot this nomination by erasing this discussion. User:Jonathan_784
First, please never delete discussions; they should always be archived, and in this case should be archived in the nominations slush pile. Second, I do object to this article being made a star as long as it lacks maps that show the locations of all attractions. The satellite data is available, and a map trace is eminently possible. It's also a pretty clear requirement for all non-region star nominations to have all listed attractions/restaurants/etc. marked on a Wikitravel-style map. It's nonetheless a great article, but it lacks the "perfect" quality of a star. There should be no notable room for improvement in an article if we are to make it a star. --PeterTalk 18:10, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
One other optional suggestion: it would be nice to have some more images, since the article is so long. They help break up the black & whiteness of the page. And I'd guess there are a lot of good photos of Disney World floating around! --PeterTalk 23:16, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
9/16/08: After reviewing a few Star articles that have only one map, I think that this article is definitely Star quality, with or without maps of sub-areas such as the theme parks. User:Jonathan_784
Object. I don't think this article is ready for star status. I'm not even going to nitpick, I have one major underlying criticism of this article - lack of descriptions in the listings. Some Eat and Sleep listings do not have any descriptions at all, and those that do read like they were pulled directly from a Disney website. Honestly, looking at it the only differences I can tell between the listings are theme, location, and price. That's not good enough for me. I need something more specific - what makes this place worth staying or eating at? What are the highlights? Stuff like that. As it is right now, I can't support promoting this one to star status. PerryPlanet 19:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Geez, I didn't even know this was up for star, or I would have been contributing to the discussion. Gotta do a better job communicating, Jonathan, especially on the talk page. A few items:
I understand Peter's suggestion of park maps, but I question their value. To me, "The Magic Kingdom" is the attraction, so a map of it would be an attraction map, not even a city map. It'd be like having a map of the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. -- and equally subject to frequent changes. I can see other perspectives though -- certainly a visitor to WDW makes extensive use of park maps, so I can understand why we might want them here (although I daresay Disney does a much, much better job of producing them than we ever could).
The "Read" section can go if necessary. I don't fully understand the purpose of the "Read" section, because it's not really described anywhere, so I did what I could. I will point out, though, that some of those sources go into much greater detail than we generally do -- AllEars.net, for example, has detailed menus for the restaurants on property, something we would never try to keep up-to-date.
Jonathan's prolific efforts on this article are deserving of recognition and accolades, although I agree the article isn't star-level yet. I still need to take a detailed look at the current state to see exactly what I feel needs changing; a lot of my earlier visions for the article have been made moot by Jonathan's efforts, and I do still have that unresolved question on the talk page.
This discussion seems to have stalled, so I'm bringing it back up. I just made a quick trip to the public library to take a look at Fodor's Walt Disney World -- here are my new thoughts:
Fodor's book not only has maps of the theme parks but also of the resorts. It would probably not be worth such an effort to have theme park maps, or resort maps, for that matter.
I wrote many of the restaurant descriptions myself, and I'm not a culinary critic. The way I see it, the restaurant descriptions are decent enough provided that the external links lead to some more specific info.
For the hotel listings that don't have descriptions, I think they're allright with just the contact info and the links. These are ordinary, non-themed hotels anyway.
Objections Jonathan, I really commend your efforts, and I think it'll get there eventually - but for now I have the following objections;
The layout of the page is a mess (I have a very untypical resolution of 1680x1050, it may not be obvious to you if you're on a low res setting ) - this refers to the info boxes in particular.
No, I really think a place needs maps over the attractions, with the same underlying reasons as the external links guidelines (we want the content here). And I know that other star articles might just have one map, but this is a different sort of article and destination all together - try it - it's not that freighting once you get into it :-)
There are still a lot of listings that don't have descriptions - this is a must as far as I'm concerned, and others could use further elaborations (I recommend doing them one section at the time, until you feel really good about the section, and then moving on to the next one)
I feel you frustrations dude, I digged headlong into Copenhagen myself, without realizing how much work it takes just to get the districts into guide standard. Just take it one section at the time, and try not to rush it too much. Ganbatte kudasai! ;-)
While I don't deny that park maps are useful, I question whether it's practical to keep them updated. See my comparison above -- it'd be useful to have a map of the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., but not really practical. LtPowers 22:34, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
Hmm. The reason we don't keep up maps of museums is because they provide their own maps at the door for free. If they don't, then I think a map would be quite handy (like at the Hermitage, for example). So, are the Disney maps free? --PeterTalk 22:52, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
Oh yes, due to their essential nature. Disney gives them away by the bucketful. You get the full suite of maps/guides at check-in, or with your tickets if you're not staying on-site. I can't imagine anyone choosing to use our maps while actually in the park, no matter how good they are.
That said, there may be some value in a potential visitor using our maps to plan his or her visit. When the idea of park maps was first floated, I was thinking of maps as detailed as a city map would be. However, now that I think about it, a basic map of each park, showing the major themed areas (the seven "lands" in the Magic Kingdom, each pavilion in Epcot, etc.) and major landmarks might be worthwhile, and not as hard to keep up-to-date as a map showing every last ride, restaurant, and show. I still don't think I'd let their absence keep the article from becoming a star, but I wouldn't object to their inclusion either. LtPowers 08:57, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
That was how i was thinking, mainly locations of the different rides - anyway, I've s striked it under my objections, even though i'd really like to see it Sertmann 10:29, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, I would like to see that. I made a National Mall map that basically set out to do the same thing (although I doubt Disney World would have quite so many attractions on one map!). I'd like to see these before calling it a star—while the guide is awesome even without them, it's not quite as perfect as our criteria require (the criterion that there be no ostensible room for improvement). And given my geography bent I really like to see the lay of the land before arriving. I think these maps would be pretty easy to do, since NASA provides really close up images of the parks, and because you could use the Disney maps (or just experience) as a guide in marking the landmarks/major rides.
So in sum, I'd like to see these basic maps before I strike my objection. Once we've got them up, I'll take a closer read through the article before I support. --PeterTalk 12:13, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
So what is holding this back from being a star:updated list? Keep smiling, eetalk 16:18, 13 November 2008 (EST).
I think it's time to add this to the slush pile. I don't think the prose is sparkling yet, and Peter still wants park maps, which will take a while. I'm working on an Epcot-area map but I'm not sure how it's going to come out using our house style (due to the way Disney uses stagecraft and illusion to influence the guests' perceptions, an aerial view of the parks does not mesh well with what the guest perceives). Furthermore, given our goals to be comprehensive and the only travel guide a traveler would need for a given destination, that means our Walt Disney World travel guide needs to be book-length. All the other Disney World travel guides are. For us, that's going to mean dividing up into "districts", possibly on the scale of individual lands (i.e., a "Fantasyland" article, a "Future World" article, a "Camp Minnie-Mickey" article, etc.).
In short, I think we need to have a discussion about what exactly our WDW article should include, and how big it should be. This is not the place for that discussion, though, so I would encourage anyone who commented here to join me on Talk:Walt Disney World Resort for tea and cookies a discussion on the scope of this article. A lot of interesting points were raised above, but we need to discuss them there, not here.
I honestly think it would be very unlikely that a typical traveller would print out a theme park map created by us and use it, givien the fact that official maps are distributed for free, either at the park entrances or at hotel check in. As for the rest of the article, I am always open to new suggestions/ideas. Jonathan 784 10:21, 17 November 2008 (EST)
I've prepared a chart showing transportation options between destinations at WDW. It can currently be found at User:LtPowers/WDWSandbox. I'm not sure if it's practical to incorporate into the article, though. LtPowers 11:40, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
The Muppets at Walt Disney World
I just updated the listing of the Muppets At Walt Disney World TV special, because I discovered that someone put the whole program on YouTube. But they divided it into seven parts - see http://www.youtube.com/user/hardtofindvideo. Should we link this? Jonathan 784 13:33, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
Could go either way. In principle, we should avoid linking to copyright violations, which this certainly is. But for programs such as this, that the copyright holders have not seen fit to release on any commercial medium since their original broadcast—there is a very high demand for them. Myself included, in this case; I've never gotten to see this particular special and will probably go check it out shortly. LtPowers 16:42, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
At Talk:Walt Disney World/Epcot, it was noted that the divisions between "see" and "do" don't apply very well to theme parks. And now I see that the overview article collapses the two into one section header—any reason we shouldn't do the same for all the district articles? --PeterTalk 17:53, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
Only policy, AFAIK. But then Wikipedia has that rule that says "ignore all rules", so I say whatever works best for the traveler. There is some scenery at WDW but I think the vast majority of attractions would be under "Do" if we kept them separate. LtPowers 20:15, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
I just removed a few infoboxes, merging the info into the main body of text, but the number of infoboxes on here still seems a little staggering to me. Looking at Wikitravel:Information boxes, my impression is that infoboxes should only be used for pieces of information that are of particular importance or interest to the traveler, that don't fit easily into the main body of text. If we were to get serious about this policy, we could cut off quite a few of these infoboxes, which would help with some of the formatting issues people have been having. And I think we'd still have a few infoboxes leftover (such as the "ode to Walt"), which I think is fine, I just don't think every bit of particularly useful info requires its own infobox. PerryPlanetTalk 14:00, 14 April 2009 (EDT)