Talk:The Wizarding World of Harry Potter (Universal Orlando Resort)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rearranging

So many of the attractions seemed to straddle the line between experiences and shops (like Ollivander's, and the Owl Post) it didn't seem to make sense to sort them one way or another, or to list them twice. I mean, EVERYTHING here is going to be something to see/do, right? You'll want to see all these places even if you have no interest in eating there or buying anything. At least I certainly do. Propaniac (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

---

List of attractions at The Wizarding World of Harry Potter → The Wizarding World of Harry Potter — The vast amount of media coverage related to this theme park area (even a month before it opens) suggests that there is a lot more that can be written about it, both now and in the future, than simply a list of the attractions. The Wizarding World of Harry Potter currently redirects to Islands of Adventure#The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, but it would make more sense to add details about the area's development, controversies, fan reception, etc. to a dedicated article about the area, rather than cram it into that one section on the Islands of Adventure page. It would therefore make sense to expand the scope of this article to allow it to cover anything related to the area, not just the attractions themselves. (Also, the current set-up sends users who are looking for info about the Harry Potter theme park to what is essentially just a much briefer summary of the information here; it would seem to benefit such users more if we just sent them to this article directly, but, again, in that case we should expand the scope of this article by renaming it.) Propaniac (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. I also wanted to point out, for what it's worth, that the Harry Potter navigation template has linked to this article, and not the The Wizarding World of Harry Potter redirect, since this article was created in September 2009. The lack of objection would seem to indicate some consensus that this is the better resource for the topic. Propaniac (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support For the reasons laid out above by the nominator. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No 'Critical reception' or 'Reviews' section?

I've added an external link to Slate's 24 June review The Park That Should Not Be Visited. Someone might want to use it for starters. (I know nothing of Harry Potter.) --CliffC (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Wizarding World of Harry Potter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: — e. ripley\^talk 18:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a quite nice article, although there a few details that need to be addressed.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There are a few spots that need to be brushed up according to the WP:MOS. For instance, double dashes (--) should be changed to – or — and ampersands should be replaced with "and." There are also a few spots where punctuation is improperly left inside quotation marks (should be "stuff", or "stuff". as opposed to "stuff," or "stuff." -- I personally hate this portion of the MOS but hey, they didn't ask me). Also, in the "Previous Potter attractions" section, is this blockquote at the bottom a direct quote from someone? If so you need quotation marks to show that it is, and you also need to identify what you're quoting from; an inline link isn't enough. Otherwise it makes it look like you're quoting from the book, since you have a colon where you lead into the quote. The lead section is also way too short, particularly when sitting aside that enormous infobox.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Generally speaking the sources are wide-ranging and culled from inarguably WP:RS. However, is HPANA considered reliable? How about Jim Hill, a blogger? I am a bit concerned that he's being used rather often/prominently here, particularly in the "he said she said" section about deals falling through. Is he a particularly well-respected blogger on this subject?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Looks stable now.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The gallery could use some pruning. Some of those images seem redundant, and one (the Monster Book of Monsters) is even a little blurry. WP:IG states that One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall good job, certainly made me want to go see it. One further question: Has there been any criticism? I noticed there was a Slate article that might not have been so positive. I don't see why it can't be passed once these items get resolved. I'll leave it on hold until July 23rd for you to resolve these items.

• Thank you for the review, although I personally can't commit to any significant work on the article in the near future. I wanted to point out that according to MOS:QUOTE, blockquotes should not be enclosed in quotation marks. I've revised the punctuation slightly leading up to the quote; to me, it seems clear (especially in the new version) that the quote is from Jim Hill, describing how Rowling wanted to duplicate the experience she depicted in the Potter book. Propaniac (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Very good, I think the problem I'm having, which other people might also have, is that at present the attribution is hanging out in the middle of the sentence. I would suggest a formulation more like this: "Later reports suggested that the venture fell apart over Disney's reluctance to accommodate Rowling's vision for the attraction, which would have brought each guest into the park through an experience mimicking Harry's introduction to the wizarding world (as depicted in the first Potter book), according to blogger Jim Hill: ... Retains the meaning but gets the attribution much closer to the quoted text. — e. ripley\^talk 20:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done some more work on the article to rectify some of the items stated in the review. As for the quote, I have replaced the <blockquote></blockquote> tags with Template:Quote. I have also rearranged the sentence before as suggested by E. Ripley. Finally, I have notified Snowman Guy (the owner of the majority of images in the gallery section) of the review and have asked him if he would like to move them to Wikimedia Commons. I have linked the appropriate Wikimedia Commons category in the external links section using the appropriate template. Themeparkgc (talk)

Thanks everyone for helping getting the article to GA status. Themeparkgc (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Three GA review related questions not yet addressed

Is Jim Hill a particularly notable blogger? Is HPANA considered a WP:RS? Has there been any notable criticism of the park? Thanks for addressing the other items, if we can get through these I'll pass it. — e. ripley\^talk 17:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• On the subject of Jim Hill, I've been doing some searches and he seems to me to be a noted longtime Disney expert who gets quoted as such fairly frequently in the media. This Google News Archive search seems like perhaps the best defense of his qualifications; you can see he's been quoted by NPR, the San Diego Union Tribune, the Associated Press, and others. (He also got some coverage in 2005 when he was ejected from one of the Disney parks for giving unauthorized tours, but I don't think that reflects poorly on his reliability.) I haven't come across anyone claiming he's a crackpot or anything like that.
• In regard to HPANA, I'm not sure how well that site meets the RS guidelines (it does have its own Wikipedia article, FWIW), but it's not being called upon to do a great deal here. The two HPANA sources are used in concert with two others for that sentence; one of the other sources is a newspaper article that seems to effectively confirm the whole sentence, but since most of the story's behind a paywall, I included the HPANA page that linked to the story and quoted the most relevant portion. Similarly, the other cited HPANA page quotes from another source which is no longer available. And then you have the Jim Hill citation that effectively confirms everything again, assuming Hill's writing is reliable. Really, you could lose both HPANA sources entirely and I think the sentence would still be acceptably cited, but I included them to offer additional information to any interested reader.
• As for the last point, it's always been my intention that this article should include a section about reviews and reaction to the park, but I haven't had time yet to research or write such a section myself (and I may or may not have time anytime soon). Of course anyone else who wants to write such a section is free to take that on. But I'm not aware of any significant criticism or controversies; I think everything I've read has been positive except for the article linked on this page (and in my opinion that guy seems like a whiner, but that's just me). Propaniac (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

All of that seems reasonable to me, thanks for taking the time to outline this. Consider all my concerns addressed. — e. ripley\^talk 19:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review

The following is a list of recommendations made by a recent Semi-Automated Peer Review. Please mark off items if you have completed / fixed them up with {{Done}}. Themeparkgc  Talk  09:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]1
• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]|200px]],200px,  Done All images have concise captions already. Themeparkgc  Talk  09:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?] Not sure Does this apply in this particular case of names? Themeparkgc  Talk  09:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]</ref>.,</ref>,,  Done One case fixed Themeparkgc  Talk  09:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

Proposal for a slight restructure

I'm thinking of restructuring the middle section of the article to be Attractions instead of Rides. This would allow the Dining, shopping and other attractions section to be merged up into the new Attractions section and renamed Hogsmeade. Support / oppose? Themeparkgc  Talk  23:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Why? I don't see what that would accomplish except to make the article harder to navigate by putting the bulk of the information into one giant section. At this point I oppose that. Propaniac (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support. My reason: even during the slow season Three Broomsticks and Ollivanders have lines extending out of their venues. They are definitely attractions in and of themselves and deserve due attention that would come with being a subheader instead of just italicized in a paragraph. ihafez ^talk 19:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Restoring information on previous attraction concepts

Okay, below is the text I would like to include in the article, to replace the current content of the "Previous attraction attempts" section (which I'm also quite open to renaming):

---

Universal first contemplated building an attraction around Harry Potter in the late 1990s or early 2000s, according to entertainment blogger Jim Hill. Universal's original vision was for an elaborate stage show at one of the Universal Studios theme parks; the show would have been similar in format to the Wild Wild West Stunt Show, and would have featured Harry, Ron and Hermione in a showdown with an animatronic Voldemort, culminating in the villain's spectacular death.

According to Hill, Universal was unable to pursue the idea with Rowling, as they were told that another company, which Universal assumed to be Disney, owned Potter theme park rights. Following a 2003 comment about the matter by Universal Orlando president Bob Gualt, a storm of rumors erupted that Disney had a Potter project in development, leading AOL Time Warner to publicly assert their control of the rights. From 2001-2003, the Time Warner-owned Australian theme park Warner Bros. Movie World offered a walk-through attraction called the Harry Potter Movie Magic Experience. The attraction featured props and re-creations of sets from the first two Potter films.

In late 2006, Hill reported that Rowling had signed a letter of intent signifying her willingness to partner with Disney on a theme park attraction; this was denied by a spokesman for Rowling. It was later reported that negotiations between Rowling and Disney had broken down due to creative differences. According to Hill, Rowling's vision would have brought each guest into the attraction through an experience mimicking Harry's initation to the wizarding world:

J.K. allegedly wanted each and every guest who was experiencing the theme park version of Harry Potter's world to do so by first entering the Leaky Cauldron pub. Where – by tapping on just the right brick ("Three up and two across ... ") – they'd then gain access to Diagon Alley, that odd collection of Wizards-only shops and restaurants that's hidden away in the heart of London.

From this area (Which was...supposed to have been the equivalent of Main Street U.S.A. at Disneyland...), these folks were then supposed to have made their way to Platform 9 and 3/4 at King's Cross Station. Where – after magically piercing the barrier that separates the Muggle world from the Wizard world – guests would have then been able to board a full-sized version of the Hogwarts Express for a trip to Hogwarts.

— Jim Hill, Jim Hill Media

---

In terms of reliable sources: I assume the newspapers are all fine, and I don't really care either way about including MuggleNet or Warner Bros. Movie World, if those are problematic, which leaves Jim Hill and Melissa Anelli. Melissa Anelli, the author of the Leaky Cauldron item, is quoted and referenced constantly in the media as a Potter expert; has published a bestselling book about the Potter phenomenon, for which JK Rowling wrote the foreword; and has interviewed Rowling on many occasions, for the book, for the website, and for the TLC podcast (Pottercast), which Anelli co-hosts. So if Anelli says TLC talked to a spokesman for Rowling who denied a report, that seems pretty reliable to me.

So, Jim Hill. I went back to Google News to look for sources backing up his expertise. What I was surprised to find were so many articles that didn't just look to him for an informed opinion or perspective, but that in fact simply reported that he had reported something, in exactly the way I'm seeking to do here. Examples include: The Guardian, Wired, Animation Magazine, St. Petersburg Times ([1], [2]), and New York Magazine ([3], [4], [5], [6]). In addition, examples of articles that did just provide his input as an expert include The Hollywood Reporter, Charlotte Observer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, as well as these for which I'm only able to provide a Google News excerpt or no link at all: Palm Beach Post, San Jose Mercury News, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the Miami Herald, the Salt Lake Tribune, the Associated Press, and about a zillion articles from the Orlando Sentinel. None of these lists should be considered at all complete. However, based on these, I don't believe that the way I'm attempting to use Hill should pose a significant obstacle.

To address whether this information is worth including, unlike the January 2007 "rumors", I feel that this content provides the article with real additional value and depth. Looking at previous attraction concepts, and how they were derailed, is relevant to better understanding the attraction that eventually came to exist. The description of the original Universal show idea doesn't seem to have been widely reported, but it was historical, not news, so that makes sense, and as far as I can tell there's absolutely no requirement that every bit of information in a GA or an FA must have made headlines. The comment that "Disney has Harry Potter wrapped up" was widely spread on the Web, and the Orlando Sentinel source supports that there were a lot of rumors about it around that time. The letter-of-intent business also made a significant impact online, especially in the fan community and Rowling specifically responded to it. (I know these Google searches are lazy and perhaps quite unconvincing, but to be honest I'm tired at this point and want to get this out there.) And Hill's description of Rowling's alleged vision for the Disney park is, again, not really "news" but simply very interesting (at least I find it so) in light of the park that was actually created. It was also reported by New York Magazine and the blog ComicsBeat. (And there are the two cited newspapers that mentioned the creative differences between Disney and Rowling.)

Okay, that's all I've got for now. FYI, I likely won't be returning to Wikipedia or this discussion until Monday. Propaniac (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how the information about Warner Bros. Movie World's Harry Potter Movie Magic Experience would be problematic. Could you please elaborate? Themeparkgc  Talk  03:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

All I meant was that if there was any issue with that particular source, for example if User:Geometry guy did not feel that a GA could acceptably use that source for whatever reason, I have no personal objection to removing it. I have no objection to keeping it, either, which is why I included it in this proposed rewrite, but it's not part of my personal goals here. Propaniac (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Shows

There are also two shows here - the Frog Choir and the Triwizard Spirit Rally. These should be described somewhere in the article (perhaps in a new "Shows" section) as well. Alphius (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Frog Choir and the Triwizard Spirit Rally should be described either in the current "Dining, shopping and other attractions" section or within a new "Shows" section in the article.--Snowman Guy (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As Snowman Guy said, the Dining, shopping and other attractions section would probably be the best location for this. Remember, if you add anything try to find some reliable sources for these additions so the article retains its Good Article Status. Thanks. Themeparkgc  Talk  07:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I found links for the Frog choir and the Spirit Rally, but they don't contain much text, mostly pictures and video. Not sure if this is an appropriate reference. Nawalani (talk) 02:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Second Wizarding World

Media reports within the last 24 hours suggest Universal Studios Hollywood is planning on opening their own version of the land. At the moment this seems to be coming off the word of "people familiar with the matter" which was first reported in the Wall Street Journal on December 1. If this done indeed becomes true and Universal do announce it, I would suggest that this article be moved to The Wizarding World of Harry Potter (Islands of Adventure) and a new article created about the attraction at Hollywood. If this wasn't to happen, the article would probably become overrun by unsourced rumours and lose its GA status. Themeparkgc  Talk  08:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Themeparkgc  Talk  06:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Merging This Article with The Wizarding World of Harry Potter (Universal Studios Hollywood)

This article should be merged with The Wizarding World of Harry Potter (Universal Studios Hollywood) to form a single page for 'The Wizzarding World of Harry Potter'. The planned Hollywood and Japan versions alongside the existing Islands of Adventure version should all be available in one consolidated article. As a themed land of multiple parks, I believe that Wizzarding World of Harry Potter should be one article, not two or three. Other themed lands, i.e. several of those in Disney Theme Parks such Main Street, U.S.A., Adventureland, Frontierland, Fantasyland, Tomorrowland, Toy Story Playland, Mickey's Toontown, Critter Country feature different versions at different parks all in consolidated articles. Even several themed areas found in multiple Six Flags can be found with all their different versions in consolidated articles such as those for Whistlestop Park and Kidzopolis. I believe the same format used for themed lands at Disney theme parks should be followed by the articles for those in Universal theme parks. SecretName101 (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that could potentially be a goal one day but just not yet. I have a few reasons why:

1. At the moment this article is a Good article and I wouldn't want it to loose this status with the addition of unsourced information and other edits of that nature during the development of the attraction at Universal Studios Hollywood and Japan. Unsourced edits are already being made to the other page.
2. Depending on how different the other Wizarding Worlds turn out to be, this could be very confusing to readers to have all the information in one article.
3. This article is already quite long and merging it with other Wizarding World articles could potentially force a split anyway.
4. There is already an article detailing all occurrences of Harry Potter in amusement parks.
5. Most of the other themed area articles are no where near as detailed as this one. They are mostly comprised of lists which would be a huge step backwards for this article.

Themeparkgc  Talk  02:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Expansion

In January 2012 the JAWS ride was shut down and was fully demolished in summer 2012. Universal had made plans to make a new harry potter land where the JAWS ride was in universal studios florida park. Your probably thinking that I'm crazy because Wizarding World of Harry Potter is in Islands of Adventure, but universal is making a train that would bring the people from Wizarding World of Harry Potter to the new land but only if they bought a 2 park ticket. The new Expansion would include a gringotts rollercoaster that would be like the Harry Potter and The Forbidden Journey but with a different battle with seat that would have 3 rows of 4 seats that would be lopped sided so that everybody would see the ride. That ride would be like spiderman too . It would also have diagon alley that would be hidden behind a new restaurant called, " The leaky cauldron ". Another ride that is being made is Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes that would be a rollercoaster. The expansion would include new shops and restaurants based on the books and movies. This new expansion would be open July 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.38.146 (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)