Talk:Islands of Adventure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Wizarding World of Harry Potter

OK folks, we have three sections in the article talking about the exact same thing. I know we're all excited about the announcement, but for the sake of the article, let's try and settle on one location for this subject. In my opinion, the "Future" section of the article should be expanded to include additional details, then moved up into the "Islands" section upon its opening in 2009.

McDoobAU93 15:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was already consolidating them by the time you wrote this. Also, there is a already a redirect page for an article named The Wizarding... AUTiger ʃ talk/work 15:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
No worries, this looks a lot better. I think the wording of what's happening with Lost Continent needs to be tweaked. From my reading, Wizarding World annexes the upper 1/3 of Lost Continent (the medieval section), leaving a smaller, two-section LC (the Arabian and Greek sections). I may think about the wording and post something later. Thanks, and War Eagle!
McDoobAU93 17:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It has not been confirmed or denied that Dueling Dragons and the flying Unicorn will be re-marketed. Until there is word about that (confirmation or denial) then it shouldn't be in the article.--Farquaadhnchmn(Dungeon) 00:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It said "may" just as the Sentinel article indicated; it just using the verifiable news report and qualifiying it. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 00:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It said nothing in the Sentinel article or on the webpage as referenced on the Harry Potter page about changing the main rides already there. I wouldn't be surprised if they did, but until someone says "Deuling Dragons is now going to be..." or something similar, don't put it here. If it is in that article, direct me to it with paragraph and line numbers.--Farquaadhnchmn(Dungeon) 00:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The original Sentinel article did say that; the current one (reposted - note the new article time and different byline) does not. It was even attributed to a spokesperson. Maybe they recanted or backtracked on the comment.AUTiger ʃ talk/work 00:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes doing things the old-fashioned way works. A co-worker gave me his copy of the Orlando Sentinel, which features the original article. Halfway through the article, there is this (second paragraph under "A 20-acre Potter 'island'" sub-heading, page A12) ... "The new, 'seventh island' would feature reconstructed and rethemed attractions, and all-new ones, Scott Trowbridge, vice president of Universal's Creative Studios, said in an interview." The author later speculates that Dueling Dragons and Flying Unicorn "likely would be adapted to fit the Harry Potter story," but said "Trowbridge would not discuss specific attractions, but did say that Universal intended to 'leverage some existing infrastructure'" (fifth paragraph, same sub-heading, same page). So, Universal acknowledges that some attractions will be re-themed, but will not say if those attractions are Dueling Dragons and Flying Unicorn, even though there is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest that those are the attractions being discussed. To that end, I suggest we leave the "may include" line that Autiger put, but then preface the article with a future construction tag, especially since there is still so much we don't know about Wizarding World. Opinions?
McDoobAU93 01:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
How about something like "The island will include rethemed attractions and early media speculation centered around Dueling Dragons and Flying Unicorn — Lost Continent rides with magical and fantasy themes." This makes clear the newspaper named those rides, not Universal. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 15:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
In reply to McDoobAU93's message on my talk page:
I remember reading this discussion a while ago and agreeing with both of the last two comments above. I think it's important to avoid passing things off as fact, or appearing to, but since all the pointers, or at least all the speculation, seem to be pointing towards Dueling Dragons etc. being rethemed, then I would go for something along the lines of what AUTiger said above. Maybe including a reference link to one of the articles that speculated.
Rmkf1982 Talk 22:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Orlando Sentinel's webmasters screwed up the article links that day to where you couldn't get to the Powers article. I have a print copy of that article, which I quoted earlier in the discussion. We just need to make sure that the citation includes basically the entire paragraph, if possible, since practically everything in the WW section comes from that article.
McDoobAU93 23:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:UIOA Logo copy.gif

Image:UIOA Logo copy.gif 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)