text:
Talk:Walking tour of Sydney

hi, I created a googlemap for this: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=-33.874602,151.211486&spn=0.005665,0.013797&z=16&msid=218007334666616766131.00049cbe3c70a26b10c95 If you find it ok, please add. 91.190.44.1 19:09, 20 February 2011 (EST)Agzas (not registered here)

Central Sydney Map is Wrong
Picture is inaccurate and POV based. Darling Harbour is not that large nor is it a suburb of its own, in the picture it's including the suburbs of Pyrmont and Ultimo. The Rocks is also not that large as that's including the suburbs of Dawes Point, Millers Point and Barangaroo which are all separate to The Rocks. The 'City East' does not include Paddington and Moore Park. Paddington is mostly Woollahra Council along with Edgecliff train station and Moore Park while being 'City of Sydney' Council is part of the Centennial Parklands in the Eastern Suburbs. Whoever made this map didn't research suburbs, postcodes and boundaries correctly. It's an epitome of inaccurate original research. 2405:6E00:289:B4FC:581:37C3:DA1:6C8A 17:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Central Sydney Districts.png

title: Talk:Walking tour of Sydney


text:
Talk:Wallingford (England)

Move to Wallingford (England)
Since there's more than one Wallingford, I'm moving this to Wallingford (England).

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Wallingford (England)


text:
Talk:Wallonia

I removed the first-person "Credits" section of this page. It's a nice sentiment, but it would probably be more appropriate for this talk page. Another nice thing to do would be to leave a thank-you note on User:(WT-en) Dhum Dhum's talk page. --(WT-en) Evan 11:28, 6 Feb 2004 (EST)

title: Talk:Wallonia


text:
Talk:Walnut Creek

This article sucks
After thinking on this article awhile, I've concluded that this is actually meant to be a joke article. Maybe this would be funnier if I wasn't distracted by the numerous factual errors throughout the article. Here's a brief list of the factual errors starting from the first paragraph.
 * 1) Walnut Creek ... has been paved over and placed underground. Incorrect.
 * 2) ..running off (and/or killing) all the indigenous.. In this region, the indigenous peoples either died of Euro diseases or merged with the Spanish population prior to the US expansion
 * 3) Commonly referred to as "The Creek"  By who?  I've never heard this even when living in nearby Berkeley.  At the least, it's not common.
 * 4) Barrows Barrow
 * 5) visitors with a slightly darker hue then your average Swede are thought of.. I call BS.  While I assume Walnut Creek does contain racists, I would judge it as less racist than 80% of the United States.  Do 80% of US articles contain similar warnings?
 * 6) be careful not to jaywalk in front of a police officer.  Um, which California city can I go jaywalking in an officer's face and not expect a citation?  Sure ain't Berkeley
 * 7) Do So in the About section we mention Mount fricken Diable state park, but we don't mention it here because that wouldn't be funny?
 * 8) there are several local cables providers that offer several hundred mind-numbing stations  NO! REALLY?
 * 9) if you have a trust fund, Walnut Creek's new downtown shopping district is a great place to blow a wad of cash  I'm thinking I don't need a trust fund to go buy a book at Barnes & Noble
 * 10) numerous restaurants and several bars that now stay open until the recently unheard of time of 9pm  9PM is pretty standard in Suburban Bay Area cities

About the only good I have to say about this article is that going to Berkeley for food is a good idea -- it's only 20 minutes away and a totally different league of food than Walnut Creek.

This article also claims that California's central valley is the largest valley in the world. Wikipedia says no such thing, so I'm inclined to beleive that the author just invented this fact too.

I'm going to perform a joke-ectomy unless someone objects.

-- (WT-en) Colin 21:55, 3 May 2004 (EDT)

 * Please feel free to edit the article. I enjoy the humor, but feel free to cut it down in places you don't think appropriate. It'd be nice to add more info. --(WT-en) Evan 01:16, 4 May 2004 (EDT)

 * The only thing I'm gonna regret is that I'm taking some style away from Wikivoyage (Though I don't agree with this particular style). I'd really love to see an article somewhere that is both fair and exemplifies the kind of humor or punch we'd like to see in Wikivoyage articles.  There's a tendency to get vanilla everything when folks who just wander by nuke the jokes one by one (like the nuke of my comment about Fry's salesfolk in Fremont) We need a volunteer!  (Not me... I have no sense of humor). -- (WT-en) Colin 01:18, 25 May 2004 (EDT)

 * "Walnut Creek ... has been paved over and placed underground." That's correct.  I've been there.  It's under downtown.  Entrance A is right by the catanina, and entrance B is by macy's.   I can show you a picture. (WT-en) jm51 19:50, 30 Dec 2004 (EST)

 * The entire thing is underground, or one section? Is it underground for all of Walnut Creek? This is not just an article about downtown. -- (WT-en) Colin 22:02, 30 Dec 2004 (EST)

 * No, just a good mile or two. It takes about 15 minutes to walk from one end to the other.  And it is put in lots various tunnels and waterways as it goes through down.  (WT-en) jm51 12:24, 31 Dec 2004 (EST)

Walnut Creek is a bedroom community that morphed into a commercial zone.

It is a bedroom community that resents and enjoys the benefits of commercial residence, but despises the the taxation on emergency services. It is a terrible contradiction. Is this really the Bay Area.. not really. It is very conservative. —The preceding comment was added by 69.42.23.9 (talk • contribs)

Stupid, useless article
This article provides no useful information and is not even funny as satire.

It is done
I performed the jokectomy. For historical reference, let me point out that a previous anon user also whined about this article in the talk page, and also a different anon user once blanked the entire page. So more than just me thought there were issues with this article. -- (WT-en) Colin 01:44, 25 May 2004 (EDT)

This Guy's a Moron
I'm no big fan of Walnut Creek, but whoever wrote this sounds like some whining, cranky, bitter person making a very lame attempt at humor. The page should be taken down. It contains disinformation.

 * Project:Plunge forward -- (WT-en) Colin 01:47, 14 Aug 2004 (EDT)

This article is now boring
OK. So now we have a totally factual, non-cheeky article on Walnut Creek. Great. It actually matches the place. Boring.

Now let's get some 19-year-old sys-admin to go around and remove all of the links to events calendars. Then our travel guide will be complete. -- (WT-en) Mark 16:51, 16 Aug 2004 (EDT)

 * The insulting tone of the original made the current result inevitable. I left in what I could bear to leave (I restrained myself to merely taking out blatent falsehoods), but I'm unsurprised that someone came along and ate the rest.  I believe that it is a fundamental property of this Wiki that a) users will research their own hometowns b) will be offended by any joke that cuts too close to them or is even slightly mean-spirited c) they will remove it because they can and d) we will end up with a Vanilla manual.  I think we have a serious need to figure out how to stick in some humor to spice up the place yet somehow manage to avoid d)

 * Once the current round of edits is done, I plan on re-adding the advisory to consider Berkeley/SF for world-class food but I'll leave out the slander against WC restaurants this time around. -- (WT-en) Colin 18:18, 16 Aug 2004 (EDT)

 * Most humor will offend someone, and since everyone has the ability to edit pages, this Wiki will quickly degrade into pure facts. The good part: the information will be accurate.  The bad part: the information won't offend anyone.  You can't expect humor from a committee -- which we, essentially, are.  OTOH, we can make sure that there's good information out there. 196.3.48.10 18:35, 16 Aug 2004 (EDT)

Rejokified
I added the jokes back in. I live in Walnut Creek and have for many years. I think anyone familiar with Walnut Creek will agree with all the changes made. Walnut Creek is a nice town and I enjoy living here very much, but it is still a suburb that deserves much of the disdain heaped on it. I wish someone would do the same for Berkeley and San Francisco. Too serious. We need to lighten up and have some fun. After all, isn't that what travel's all about? Having fun?

 * This article is now firmly tongue-in-cheek while also providing some decent information. No, Berkeley hippies don't train pigeons to crap on the cars, but if you've spent any time in Berkeley and Walnut Creek you can understand the humor in this tiny example of how different the mindsets of those two cities are.  As to the facts in the article, I live only a few miles from Walnut Creek and I've still managed to find a few tips from this article, so it seems pretty useful (although Strictly-to-go Pizza really isn't anything special IMHO).  If you're going to remove any humor, please at least leave a note on the talk page about why it had to go - I tend to revert any changes which attempt to tone-down this article. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:04, 3 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Well, the crap about Eugene O'Neill is just onerous and wrong. Humor is one thing--misinformation is another. I think you can have your style and your jokes without denigrating a Nobel prize winning playwright in the process. We get it; you never heard of O'Neill. That's your lack. I'll be back to work on that section. It's crap and it's marginally funny (but only in an anti-intellectual sort of way) and its full of misinformation. I'll be back.

 * That part seems over the top provocative to me—seems fair to plunge forward. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:58, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

Guide status
Does this article look like guide status yet to you? It's currently at usable status but has an abundance of listings with good content and coordinates, along with some information in other sections as well. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 12:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like guide status to me, yes. I like the banner. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've upgraded it. That creates a net change in the region of +0 for guide articles because I downgraded San Leandro to usable. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Walnut Creek


text:
Talk:Walt Disney World

Alternative banner for this article?
I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * In this case, I definitely support a change. I get that the current banner has a nice sense of motion, but the new banner is beautiful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm against change here. The current banner is a different league :) It has a lively atmosphere! Keep. Danapit (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * The proposed banner is lovely, but I really dig the current banner. To me, that sense of movement better conveys the feeling of being in a Disney park. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * If I'm honest, I probably prefer the original too - there are possibly a few too many faces in the proposed one, though it is a lovely image. --Nick talk 22:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I'll defer to you all, as I've never visited a Disney park, myself. But I'd love to see the source image of the new banner inserted into the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I can get behind that. PerryPlanet (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Current Syced (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm not a fan of the current banner, as I don't think its at all clear. But the proposed replacement shows Main Street decorated for Halloween and thus is pretty atypical. I've had some ideas for a better banner but haven't had the time to implement it yet (and the removal of the Studios' park's icon has frustrated my scheme). Powers (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Warning box for roller coasters is overkill
I strongly disagree with this revert that changed the "don't rider a roller coaster if you have heart problems" caution box back to a warning box. warningbox explicitly states that it is for "non obvious dangers to life and limb" and that it should be used sparingly. People aren't dying at theme parks because they have a heart condition and didn't realize that a roller coaster could cause issues, so I'd like to see this warning box downgraded to a caution box lest we start diminishing the impact of warning boxes by overusing them. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, not all attractions with health warnings are roller coasters, and even those that are are not always obviously roller coasters from their exterior appearances. Secondly, this box is unusual in that it's a direct quotation of Disney's warning text, which they preface with "WARNING"; our cautionbox's limp "NOTE" would therefore be a misquotation. In this case, it's Disney issuing the warning, not us, so we should follow their lead. Powers (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Such warning signs are found at the entrance of thousands of attractions in the world, though.. and not only in theme parks. I don't think we'd want to get into the habit of using warning boxes for all of them. Perhaps it's an idea to place the entire sentence before the actual warning in the cautionbox, so you get something like "NOTE: Disney has a standard safety warning that applies to select attractions in each park etc."? JuliasTravels (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree strongly with JuliasTravels - the warning box is meant for warnings about serious dangers that the average traveler wouldn't be expected to be aware of without a warning. If the standard is being lowered to "if the destination in question has warning signs, Wikivoyage should, too" then a warning box would go into every theme park article, anywhere with an electrified rail line, etc, etc.  Overusing the warning box template waters down the effectiveness to the point of being something that would be ignored, and thus is definitely the wrong approach.  In the case of Walt Disney World the warning box should be downgraded to a caution box - possible health risks from riding the rides is worth noting, but just as someone with food allergies would know to ask about ingredients at a restaurant, anyone with health issues already knows that caution is warranted at a theme park. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We do seem to not be very consistent with these - Peggys Cove has no warning boxes even though the text indicates "people have been killed here", but we have a warzone-style warningbox on a Disney roller coaster? I'd be more inclined to go with as the 'gators are a non-obvious danger which the parks have done a poor job of pointing out. Destination signage is infamous for overemphasising some risks while whitewashing or downplaying others, so that's not a good criterion. K7L (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I've pointed out elsewhere, a cautionbox is not for less likely dangers than warningbox, but rather for less severe ones. Since these are life-threatening dangers, cautionbox should not be used. Now, it's true that if a danger is both unlikely and reasonably obvious, it usually doesn't need a box at all, but this is a special case. It's a special case because I'm quoting the actual warning Disney provides so that I have an antecedent to which the little icons in the district articles can refer. Powers (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But these warnings aren't "life-threatening dangers" any moreso than eating at a restaurant is a life-threatening danger for someone with food allergies, and they most definitely aren't "non-obvious". Someone with heart issues already knows not to ride on a roller coaster and to be cautious on other ride types - the warnings from Disney are just a CYA so that when someone with health issues does go on the ride the lawyers can say "we told you not to".  The practical effect of alerting readers to these warnings from Disney isn't to keep a visitor safe, but instead to let them know they will be inconvenienced by not being able to go on all of the rides, and thus using a warning box in this article falls far short of the "non-obvious danger to life and limb" standard. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. The fact that we're quoting the warning signs is not a convincing argument either. That's a choice. If you feel a quote would require a warning box in this case, I suggest we simply do not quote but paraphrase. I understand why you feel that cautionbox is not ideal here either, but I'd rather see us use cautionbox a bit outside its normal scope than warning box, which should be used sparingly. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe it is a fallacy that warningbox is only for war zones, or that it should be used sparingly. If you want a more severe box reserved for war zones and other imminent dangers, then you should propose one. For the record, this warningbox has been in place since well before Template:Cautionbox ever existed. We created the latter because Warningbox was being overused for cautions about scams and petty crime, but this is not such a case.  Powers (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't a fallacy that warning boxes should be used sparingly - that advice has existed on warningbox since usage documentation was originally added in February 2009. Can we find some sort of compromise here?  JuliasTravels proposed paraphrasing the Disney warning in a way that doesn't use a warning box, perhaps with some strongly-worded text rather than any sort of box - would you find that an acceptable alternative? -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A more severe box reserved for war zones and other imminent dangers? I believe warningbox is the one; that was the whole idea behind demoting lesser perils to cautionbox.
 * That said, "stay safe" warnings need to be rewritten to acknowledge that voyagers entering parks or rides with pre-existing medical conditions are not the only recorded fatalities and incidents at Walt Disney World. There's quite the list, everything from falls to drownings to crime, vehicular collisions and fire have posed hazards... and then there are the alligators. There are also many lesser incidents in which visitors or staff have been assaulted, punched, groped or harmed in some way. No real, consistent pattern - yes, people have died, but in a few of the cases an accident or a medical death had no obviously park-specific cause and could've just as easily happened anywhere.
 * We are going to have to assess which are the most likely hazards instead of relying on Disney to do so, as their lawyers may well find it expedient to overemphasise things like pre-existing medical conditions and downplay alligators if that limits the park's own liability. A web search for "Walt Disney World fatalities" finds plenty of news like . Ultimately, there's this tendency to assume "it's Disney, it's safe, it's harmless, nothing could ever happen" but all of the usual hazards - from drowning to being hit by a bus - all still apply, same as anywhere.
 * I'd save the big red Aleppo-style warningbox for use when the United States of America finally becomes a war zone. It's our highest-level warning and we use it sparingly. If the Russian-backed Trump régime starts bombing hospitals to get rid of Obamacare (the way the Russian-backed Assad régime is currently bombing Syrian hospitals) then by all means break out the war zone templates, same as if opposition-held strongholds (like California) are placed under military siege by the ruling generals. We're not there yet. K7L (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, there seems to be a distinct anti-Disney flavor to these discussions that I don't appreciate -- especially so on the WDW talk page. Secondly, you repeat the fallacy that a warningbox necessarily signifies an "Aleppo-style" warzone. It does not. It never did. For years we used it for all sorts of lethal dangers besides war zones. If you now want to restrict it to warzones, then you should propose such as a new policy. Powers (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I do stand corrected on the "sparingly" wording. I don't see the point in paraphrasing; I quote Disney's warning text because it keeps me from having to repeat it for every ride that carries the warning. If we could find another way to call out the text as a warning without using "warningbox" I suppose that would be fine but given the name of the template it seems odd not to use it. I remain adamant that cautionbox is not appropriate. Powers (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've converted the warningbox to a quotebox, which maintains the exact same text and makes it clear that this is a park warning, without the warning box's additional visual elements suggesting that visitors are risking their lives. Is this an acceptable solution?  The text is unchanged, and it isn't using a caution box, which I think were the primary concerns raised. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, visitors with certain conditions are risking their lives if they ride rides with this warning attached. I thought I'd made that quite clear; it's the entire reason why cautionbox is not appropriate. The change is a start, but I have a few problems with it. It unfortunately breaks the visual connection between the red alert icon used on individual listings and the warning here. I'm also concerned about overloading Template:Quote to be used for both literary quotations and for safety warnings; this could especially be a problem if we decide to update the section-leading quotations used in this article to use the Quote template. I also don't think the calm blue quotation marks convey the right tone for a safety warning. I still don't understand why using a warningbox for a safety warning is problematic. It's not warringbox, after all; where was it decided that only warzones could use it? Powers (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Several people have tried to explain why they feel that a warning box is problematic in this article in the comments above, so I'm not sure that repeating those arguments will further the discussion, and we may just have a disagreement of opinion on whether a ride at Disney is truly a "non obvious danger to life and limb". Regarding your concerns about the quote box, please go ahead and make whatever changes you think are necessary; the important thing for me is to avoid watering down the warning box by using it in a situation that several people seem to agree it is not appropriate for, but use of another visual element to call out Disney's concerns for people with health conditions should be fine. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We seem to go through this cycle a lot. Somebody isn't happy with the way I did something. They decide it needs to change but don't convince me. They make the change anyway and ask if it's okay. I explain why it's not and then say "Well then you fix it." Why does it always come down to me having to fix something that I don't think was broken in the first place?
 * K7L's statement "A more severe box reserved for war zones and other imminent dangers? I believe warningbox is the one; that was the whole idea behind demoting lesser perils to cautionbox" I believe misunderstands the history behind these templates. We did not "demote lesser perils". Those "lesser perils" did not have an appropriate template before the creation of Cautionbox. People used Warningbox for them, but that usage was never appropriate. We created Cautionbox to avoid further misuse of Warningbox. It was not created to carve off some of the legitimate Warningbox uses and "demote" them to a different box.
 * This warning may seem obvious on rides like roller coasters, but it is not obvious on some other rides like Kilimanjaro Safaris. And being "obvious" doesn't stop us from warning about going to Syria. Why? Because in both cases certain authorities have deemed it necessary to issue a warning despite what may seem "obvious" to us. I don't think you're using "obvious" in the same way as intended in the template documentation: what "non-obvious" means is that it goes beyond basic elementary safety precautions that apply just about anywhere. I think this qualifies.
 * Regardless, I was willing to accommodate a change to the template as long as it visually and textually conveys the same information: that this is an important safety warning. We, as a site, have an existing visual convention for that messaging. You cannot reasonably expect me to invent a new one from whole cloth that doesn't resemble our existing one. If you think it's possible to do so, please demonstrate.  I'm not sure it is.  Powers (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "They decide it needs to change but don't convince me" I take issue with the latter part of that statement - I made a change, you reverted, a discussion was started to try to work out a compromise solution, and after two weeks an attempt was made to implement a mutually-agreeable solution. You then stated your displeasure with that solution, so given the fact that you originally reverted the change, and that User:JuliasTravels & User:K7L both seem to be supportive of the change you reverted, I don't think it's unfair to now put the onus on you to propose an alternative that you are happy with. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

 * It's important to not make this personal, of course, but I do think Ryan's change was at least fair. It's obvious that we haven't convinced you - and I'm guessing we will not be able to. On the other hand, however, you haven't convinced the others in this discussion either. Your assumption that this is the right way to use warningbox is an interpretation. One that you are very convinced of, but one others have not used for plenty of other places where such dangers and warning signs are present. We have no warning box on every winter sports destination article, even though the dangers and the target group involved are pretty much the same (and the number of casualties much higher). Many of our sports travel topics describe serious dangers in the stay safe section, but none seem to use warning boxes. As for destination risks, it's also important to keep in mind that in some countries (like the US), where liability law suits are an everyday affair, official signs and warnings are more common than in others (especially developing countries) - which is why we should determine our mentions on the interests of the traveller rather than on the presence of signs. Either way, I don't think there's any lack of understanding points of view; there's simply a difference in opinion. The way to go forward then is to find some sort of compromise. One that doesn't involve warning box in this case, but could be any of a range of options. For me, simple text seems enough, but quotations is fine too. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I'm not an expert in CSS design and I'm not sure how to create an alternative that conveys the necessary information while not resembling the sacrosanct Warningbox in any way. It needs to be clearly demarcated as a warning, which implies red coloration and an appropriate icon. The exclamation point seems appropriate, but I assume that wouldn't be acceptable? We could use File:Stop hand.svg, which Template:Warningbox used to use before switching to the exclamation point. (It's also the icon in use on listings to refer to this text.) Would that be an improvement? Powers (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, not for me. This need for a red coloration and exclamation-like icon is not a given at all. You are effectively talking about a warning box look-a-like, which seems more confusing than anything else. It wouldn't really address the concerns raised and would, for the average user, not be distinguishable from the warning boxes. I can see how that satisfies your wishes, but it doesn't feel like any kind of compromise. It would also suggest that we should use that alternative warning box for the many examples of comparable dangers (like ski resorts or sports articles), and I am not a fan of that idea. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well that's the problem I'm coming up against. How can we identify this text as a warning in a way that you would consider distinguishable from warning boxes? I don't think we should bring ski resorts into this, though; this is a special case where I needed a way to identify individual rides with this specific warning attached. Powers (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can help with CSS if I better understand the desired outcome. For reasons cited in earlier arguments it would be preferable to reserve anything resembling warningbox for truly dangerous situations, so would it make sense to reconsider cautionbox for this use-case?  If not, would something like the following, which still uses bold, red text with the word "warning", but without the visual elements used for very serious dangers, be acceptable?

WARNING: For safety, you should be in good health and free...
 * -- Ryan • (talk) • 08:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Without conceding to your opinion that warningboxes should be reserved for imminent or common dangers, this is an improvement over the quotebox. But it's aesthetically bland and doesn't harmonize with our other site interface elements such as infobox and warningbox. Lacking an icon, it also provides no way to visually tie the warning to the individual attractions with which it's associated. I'm at a loss, though, to propose an icon that conveys the severity of the warning while not running into JuliasTravels' objection to any exclamation-like icon. Powers (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The severity of the warning? Isn't "people with weak hearts and dangerous medical conditions should stay off the rollercoasters" something that's just as true of any number of rival parks, or even bordering on WV:NCO? A plain-text warning in "Stay Safe" should suffice. Our most severe warnings should be for things like "the capital of Montserrat has been destroyed by an active volcano" or "armed conflict is ongoing to liberate Mosul from Da'esh extremists". That red box appears on some of the most dangerous destinations on Earth. This Mickey-Mouse operation? At some point, these are first-world problems... K7L (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not our decision whether to warn people about the rides; Disney does that. I'm just repeating it. Powers (talk) 02:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

 * The choice to repeat any warning here is our own, though, (and no-one is against doing so in this case). How we mention it is entirely our own decision too. K7L is saying that a plain text mention of this warning in Stay Safe should be plenty (and I agree, although I don't mind the quotation marks, for example). In my eyes, the ski-resorts, sports articles and all the other theme parks should be in the same discussion because the risks involved and the typical official warnings are quite identical. The Disney Stay Safe section even has a subheader called "Ride Safety". I don't understand why this particular warning sign would require a red box, when thousands of others don't - even though there is an obvious, but still potentially lethal danger. There are many natural parks where swimming in the water is dangerous due to bacteria, or where wildlife poses a threat. Plenty of coast lines have warning signs for dangerous currents, sharks, falling rocks and other dangers. And yes, in the ski resorts I go to every year there are warning signs saying pretty much the same thing Disney does: for people with heart disease or pregnant women, skiing is ill advised and may result in great harm or death. Following your logic, all these places would require some kind of red box, then. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They would, but only if we chose to include the warning. If we didn't feel the warning was necessary -- as I don't -- then we don't have to have a red box. I'm just saying that as long as we're including a warning it should use the template that we use throughout the site for physical dangers. Powers (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Walt Disney World


text:
Talk:Walt Disney World/Animal Kingdom

Walt Disney World/Animal Kingdom
I believe this article is now up to the standards established with Epcot and Hollywood Studios. All attractions are listed, as well as all restaurants and hotels. I believe the map is about as good as possible, although I'm not 100% happy with it; suggestions are welcome. (Suggestions are also welcome for the rest of the article, too, of course.) (WT-en) LtPowers 15:35, 20 November 2009 (EST)

 * Support. A very well written and formatted article. One small comment on the map - you might want to show a label with a directional arrow for Rafiki's Planet Watch on the main map. It took me a while to figure out where Rafiki's was in relation to the main map. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:13, 22 November 2009 (EST)

 * Support. Can't find anything wrong with it myself, although I like Burmesedays' suggestion. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 17:57, 23 November 2009 (EST)

 * Support. I am absolutely impressed by the way this came out. (WT-en) Jonathan 784 11:24, 25 November 2009 (EST)

 * Comment. I've added a label to the main map directing readers to the inset. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:57, 27 November 2009 (EST)
 * Promoted. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:53, 14 December 2009 (EST)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Dinosaur ride.JPG

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Disney Animal Kingdom (27589660700).jpg

 * Likely to be deleted. Upload locally if you consider it important to include in the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Alternative banner for this article?
I have previously created an alternative banner for this article (which was initially created for the parallel article at the Hebrew Wikivoyage, but I decided to suggest we'll use it here at the English Wikivoyage article as well). Which banner do you prefer that we'll use on the top of this article? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The current banner shows very little. The new banner is more interesting. Ground Zero (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Walt Disney World/Animal Kingdom (destarnom)
Many of the listings don't have coordinates and very few listings have addresses. Without either of these, you'd need to do some outside research as to see where the listings are. In my opinion, this seems more a usable article than a star or a guide article. I would ideally fix this myself but this is way too much work to do for a star article. -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I can see the reason why coordinates would be useful, but do locations within Disney parks have addresses that are more specific than the park address? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I only visited this place when I was a seven-year old child which was too long ago to remember. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Powers is the main author of the Disney articles. He is not always here, and I think it's very important not to de-star any of these articles without waiting for his input and giving him a chance to edit them. So I oppose these nominations, at least for now, and without even rereading the articles, and I have full confidence that Powers will do everything to satisfy any criticism unless he were to choose not to spend the time working on them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that these two articles were also given a destar nom before by Traveler100. I hope these articles will be improved and remain as star, but until then, a lot of our guide articles are a lot better. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * All of the Walt Disney World articles are quite out of date as I fell behind on updates several years ago and I didn't want to miss something, so de-starring is probably reasonable. However, I don't quite see the point of coordinates for attractions within the theme park. Powers (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that this kind of closed attraction (and airports) are one of the few places where static maps are likely to be better than a dynamic map. The current set of coordinates could confuse readers as the numbers don't match the numbers on the map. I wouldn't back de-starring just because it lacks coordinates if it has a good static map. However if it needs an update for other reasons than de-starring is the right course. AlasdairW (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * All see and do now I have coords or directions if I couldn't find exact coordinates. I didn't do all for blizzard beach though as it seemed to be filled with minor attractions where I couldn't find coords, if you want each blizzard beach listing to have coords I'll gather them for you though. Tai123.123 (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much :) The article is looking better now. Now just the buy, eat and drink left. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep I'll either do it later tonight or tommorow Tai123.123 (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @SHB2000 Finished Coords, I was unsure if to get coords for the resort dining listings as they are listed under the resorts which already have coords Tai123.123 (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice work as always. To the ones in the resorts, I'm not sure to be fair and would defer to someone else. You can, but there's no information lost if there aren't any. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If they are obvious once you are there, I'd say coords just add clutter. However, the listing with the coords should be clearly pointed out. –LPfi (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As both articles have been brought up back to a star quality article by both Tai123.123 and SelfieCity, can I slush both nominations? -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Springs has the Boring problem so keep that one, I don't know enough about American chains to deal with that myself. Animal kingdom should be fine though. Tai123.123 (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, sure. I'll slush this one tomorrow if there's no objections. Thank you again for turning it back to a star quality article :-). For the Disney Springs one, I'll take a look at them (I'm somewhat familiar with them), but I'll leave it to our Americans from the east to pick as to which ones stay and which ones go. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Outcome: slushed after issues were fixed -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Walt Disney World/Animal Kingdom


text:
Talk:Walt Disney World/Disney Springs

Star nomination
Continuing to plug away at Walt Disney World articles. This one is quite different from other articles because Downtown Disney isn't a theme park, but I think it still meets our standards for star. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:21, 31 January 2010 (EST)

 * I'll try to get a thorough read done later, but the intro "At Downtown Disney, you can shop 'til you drop, eat your fill, play all day, and party all night." bugs me a bit. I'm fine with "touting" the destination a bit in the intro, and like to see creative writing applied there, but to me it reads like it's taken out of Disney brochure. I might be the only one feeling that way, in which case I'm not going to hold it against the nomination, but maybe some others can comment on that. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 14:34, 31 January 2010 (EST)

 * Extremely well written and an easy read. I have a few points. Please forgive me if some of these are irrelevant for this destination, as I know absolutely zilch about the Disney set-up.

 * Do none of the roads on the map have names? Or are they not conventional roads but rather pedestrian walkways or bus-ways? If either (or both) of the latter, it would be helpful to mark as appropriate.

 * What's an Imagineer?

 * None of the Marketplace stores have phone numbers? Some are also missing for Pleasure Island and West Side.

 * In Eat. The use of a shouty, capitalised NO for NO Dining Plan, jars.

 * In Eat. After qualifying in the opening para that they should not really be used, I think the listings would look better if you either included phone numbers or not, rather than including just some.

 * Drink. I am just stunned that there are so few options! :)

 * I must say that I have a similar view to Stefan about the phrasing in the introduction. It does read like a Disney marketing-bite. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 02:57, 1 February 2010 (EST)

 * I've included phone numbers where available. For Disney-run stores, no doubt they have telephones but they're not publicized anywhere; for non-Disney stores, I was often able to go to their web sites to get phone numbers.   The only roads on the map are both parts of Buena Vista Drive; the rest of the roadways are either bus-ways (in gray) or parking lot access/driveways (in white).  I'm not sure how I could make that clearer.  I'm also open to suggestions on how better to call out which restaurants are on the dining plan and which are not.  (WT-en) LtPowers 09:20, 1 February 2010 (EST)

 * For the Dining Plan, it is customary here I think to use italics for emphasis and not caps. So: No Dining Plan.

 * On phone numbers, I think more work is required. As per the MoS requirement, I do not think we should have a star article without phone numbers for stores. I appreciate the point about the Disney establishments, but do think that a phone number at least is required for all the independent tenants. On the restaurants, if it is really advised not to use the phone numbers as the opening says, then perhaps omit them altogether? That would be better than having only some of them I think. Ideal of course, would be to find and include every number.

 * Understood on the roads, although it was not clear to me without the explanation. Maybe a key would be helpful. Not a biggie though.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:04, 1 February 2010 (EST)

 * I apologize; I think the absence of phone numbers on those non-Disney establishments was a simple oversight, as I easily found them at the web sites (except Magic Masters, for which Yahoo! yellow pages came through). (WT-en) LtPowers 11:41, 1 February 2010 (EST)

 * Well done. I am still a bit confused though over what has a phone number and what doesn't, what is Disney and what isn't. For example, Cap'n Jack's Restaurant and Cookes of Dublin have no phone numbers. Does that mean they are Disney establishments that you can't telephone direct? Or?

 * The golf courses. No phone numbers, hours or costs?

 * As you did not answer my question, I found out what an Imagineer was all by myself :) :).--(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:37, 2 February 2010 (EST)

For the golf courses, I wasn't sure how much information I should duplicate from Walt Disney World. It seems pointless to copy all of the information on attire and other regulations, although I could add the 1-407-WDW-GOLF phone number without taking up much extra space. I can't find definitive hours anywhere; I suspect they vary as the hours of daylight change. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:34, 2 February 2010 (EST)
 * Well, to be honest, I'm not really clear on what you need a phone number for anyway. If it's just because the rules require it, I would have to ask what the objective is, and whether that objective is satisfied by the main Disney Dining number or not.

 * Consistency is the key for me I think. A star article with phone numbers for some listings but not others within the same sub-section, looks like a mistake or an error of omission. Whichever way, I think it needs to be consistent. On golf courses, I agree that repeating rules and regs from the parent article would be silly. But a phone number and a price range would seem like the minimum information. In my admittedly limited experience, golf courses always have first and last tee times. I guess golfers know approximately what those will be, so no big deal. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:13, 2 February 2010 (EST)

(WT-en) jan 09:47, 1 February 2010 (EST)
 * Some issues:
 * 1) Does a Hilton hotel is a budget option? At least in Europe they are min. mid-range and the prices look not so much budget to me.
 * 2) Possible contradiction between the understand and drink section. While the understand section is promotional for the nightlife, the drink section sounds like a interesting locations are gone and franchise companies etc. moved in and took away the individual places. What holds true?
 * 3) Map: Does the parking slot have names, numbers etc.? This is very helpful. I was with my parents fiveteen years ago in WDW and it was always a nightmare to find the parking area of our car...
 * 4) The first sections sounds a bit too promotional for me, too.

 * It's true that a basic room at the Hilton is roughly comparable, price-wise, to a basic room at Port Orleans. But I thought it much more awkward to remove the Hilton from the other Hotel Plaza properties.  The lots at Downtown Disney don't have names of which I'm aware, and they didn't all get on the map anyway.  For nightlife, both are true; nightclubs as such are largely gone, but there is still much to do at night at places like Raglan Road, House of Blues, and Bongos.  Certainly more activity here than anyplace else on property after 11PM.
 * As for the lead, I'm open to suggestions if anyone has something more specific to add than "it sounds promotional". Don't all of our star articles sound promotional?  (WT-en) LtPowers 10:14, 1 February 2010 (EST)
 * We may integrate that explanation in the understand section because that's maybe the clarification/facts that the others have asked for as well. (WT-en) jan 11:04, 1 February 2010 (EST)

 * I think the issue is that Disney is a commercial entity, which our other destinations are not - which is why I didn't jump the gun and cried foul right away. I'll let you know if I think of something. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 11:08, 1 February 2010 (EST)
 * I'm not clear on why that should make a difference. (WT-en) LtPowers 11:31, 1 February 2010 (EST)
 * LtPowers: You reverted my edits while we discussed on my talk page. I suggest that as I'm not the only one that think the opening phrase of the article could be straight from Disney's promotion department you draft an alternative instead of sticking to the current version. (WT-en) jan 12:33, 2 February 2010 (EST)
 * Your edits didn't involve the opening paragraph at all, and you invited me to revert them; I apologize if I misread your intent. I'm still not sure what the point of them was, since they changed the grammar in awkward ways and didn't involve any promotional language.  At any rate, I'm sorry; maybe there's a language barrier and I'm misunderstanding you somehow, but changing "In 2008, Disney closed down the six remaining Pleasure Island nightclubs" to "Disney closed down in 2008 the six remaining Pleasure Island nightclubs" doesn't make any sense to me.  (WT-en) LtPowers 14:34, 2 February 2010 (EST)
 * LtPowers: The way you make your statements or interact makes me feel patronised and you take the part out that i wrote you that i didn't finish my work due to real life work. It's not the first time and I think i'm not the only one. I don't want to fuel this discussion here with offtopic so let get back to the article. (WT-en) jan 04:55, 3 February 2010 (EST)

How about losing the "shop 'til drop" bit altogether. The opening would then read:

 * Downtown Disney is an outdoor shopping, dining, and entertainment district in the southeast corner of Walt Disney World and comprises the Downtown Disney Marketplace, Pleasure Island, and Downtown Disney West Side. Although it's geared primarily for adults looking for something to do away from the parks, kids will find several things to occupy their attention as well.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 12:26, 2 February 2010 (EST)
 * That reads a bit dryly, doesn't it? I'm trying to maintain the same "At _____, you can ____, ____, ____, and ____," pattern that I used in the successfully starred Walt Disney World/Hollywood Studios, Walt Disney World/Epcot, and Walt Disney World/Animal Kingdom articles.  And while everyone has said they don't like it, no one has really explained why it's bad.  (WT-en) LtPowers 14:34, 2 February 2010 (EST)
 * I think it's because "shop 'til drop" sounds really cliche; something you're more likely to hear from an advertisement than a nonbiased travel website. Also, I'm pretty sure that the examples you gave also had a few criticisms when those articles came up for star (I think the criticisms were dropped when we came up with a lack of decent alternatives). How about we drop the initial sentence, then liven up the following one? (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 16:19, 2 February 2010 (EST)
 * I would very much prefer to keep the pattern so the five articles together with Walt Disney World form a coherent whole. I am absolutely not wedded to the choice of words within the pattern, but that was the best I'd come up with at the time.  (WT-en) LtPowers 16:42, 2 February 2010 (EST)
 * The opening sentences of the other resort are much less promotional, e.g. Epcot: At Epcot, you can visit Mexico, France, and China, all in the same afternoon; survive crash tests in an experimental car; soar over California with the wind in your hair; and learn all about human achievement and international cooperation. So how about: At Downtown Disney, you can shop, dine and play throughout the day and party during the night. It might not be perfect but at least the two biggest phrases wouldn't be used any more. Any other suggestions? (WT-en) jan 05:07, 3 February 2010 (EST)

I've changed the lead and changed "NO" to "No" in the restaurant listings. (I wanted to italicize "No" but can't because it's in the "price" field of the listing tag.) Please review and comment. Any other outstanding issues? (WT-en) LtPowers 18:48, 5 February 2010 (EST)

 * Thanks for the all the changes which certainly address points raised, barring a number of details which are still missing. Again, it is hard to understand whether these are Disney establishments or not and if some are covered by catch-all contact details.
 * AMC Pleasure Island has no phone number and needs some indication of costs. Had a quick check and it is all on their website.
 * Cap'n Jack's Marina and Characters in Flight. I guess these are Disney attractions? Prices? Contact details?  Characters in Flight needs opening hours.
 * La Nouba is missing a telephone number.
 * Spa at Disney's Saratoga Springs, opening hours, costs and phone number missing.
 * Marketplace shopping section - a stack of contact details missing.
 * Magnetron - no contact details.
 * Sunglass Icon - no contact details.
 * Eat section. If all of the restaurants listed can be booked via the catch-all Disney number, then fair enough. It still looks odd to have some numbers shown and others not though.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:11, 7 February 2010 (EST)

I'm not as hell bent on insisting all listings have phone numbers, but if possible all restaurant and accommodation listings should have phone numbers listed - as I imagine this is useful for seat or room reservations. I'd also like to discourage the use of "letter" phone numbers, as these are not used in large swaths of the world, and will be confusing to many foreign readers. Once that is taken care of, i'd be happy to support the nomination, with the intro taken care of, this is nice work! --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 07:53, 7 February 2010 (EST)

 * Ah, had missed the central reservations number... guess it's still usable if you forget something, but not as critical, I'd still prefer getting rid of those letter numbers. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 08:02, 7 February 2010 (EST)

 * Somehow I'd missed the AMC phone number, not sure how that happened. Most of the Disney-owned shops don't have public phone numbers as far as I can tell, though I welcome help looking for them.  For things like Cap'n Jack's Marina, the only phone number I can find is 1-407-WDW-PLAY, which is the main WDW recreational activities number.  I've added it to the listing.  I've also added hours for Characters in Flight (prices were already there).  The Spa is not missing a phone number at all, but I've added hours and a lengthy explanation of costs.   (WT-en) LtPowers 13:31, 7 February 2010 (EST)

Anyone care to support or oppose one way or another? (WT-en) LtPowers 09:12, 13 February 2010 (EST)
 * Definitely support. It is a very well written and presented article. I have not yet had time to see if all the minor points raised have been addressed. Once again, I will say it is disappointing how few users comment on these nominations. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:23, 13 February 2010 (EST)

Took me a LOT of time to review, but you now have my support. (WT-en) Jonathan 784 21:28, 14 February 2010 (EST)

 *  Almost Support. Great article, looking forward to seeing a star atop it, but IMO a few things need to be addressed:

 * For the completeness requirement, as usual, phone numbers should be included in the buy listings. They're especially useful if you need to track down details or answer questions that you can't find online... All that's ever needed for buy listings is phone, address, and hours, and the latter two are already taken care of here.

 * I also agree that it looks strange to have some restaurants with phone #s, others without. Is this because some should be called directly and others only via WDW-DINE? (And if so, what are their phone numbers for?) If so, maybe just plug +1 407 939-3463 into those listings? And if this is the case for all the resort restaurants (i.e., you don't call the resort?), then perhaps just put a reminder at the top of that section to only use the WDW-wide dining number?

 * The restaurants outside the marketplace need hours. Snack places should have price ranges. Some drink listings lack hours and all lack phone #s.

 * I would also recommend removing the check-in/check-out info from the hotels, as none of it is an exception to what one would expect (and the resorts will clearly give you the times when reserving a room) and it therefore just takes up space.

 * Lastly, I thought I'd just draw attention to the following: Opening their doors to a primarily adult clientele. If you get tired of the relentlessly artificial environments of the theme parks, you can drop by Downtown Disney at night for fun of an entirely different sort. The strongest concentration of activity at night is on the West Side, but Pleasure Island gets its share as well. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:51, 27 February 2010 (EST)

 * I have included all the phone numbers I can find. Of the ones remaining, I suspect several shops (like Mickey's Mart and the DisneyQuest Emporium) and some restaurants may not have external phone numbers at all.  I am admittedly at a loss to understand what possible use the phone numbers might be, but I realize our policies require it.  I'm open to suggestions.
 * The Eat section does say "The telephone numbers below are for extraordinary circumstances only; for reservations and most health or diet issues, call the main Disney Dining number at +1 407 WDW-DINE (939-3463)." Should I repeat that in each of the subsections?
 * I don't understand how to do price ranges for snack places, since you can't really eat a whole meal there. Is it just a range of menu item prices?
 * I can remove checkin/checkout, but they're still listed in the policy page.
 * Does that bit you quoted sound a little... misleading? I don't read it that way, but that's me.  (WT-en) LtPowers 16:42, 27 February 2010 (EST)

 * Re 1: Inventory questions are usually the most important reason for phone numbers. If there are general numbers, could you call them to ask what the individual numbers would be? Not all info is available online. I don't have any real recommendations re: 2, and wouldn't want that to hold up a starnom—just that I agree it looks a little confusing. Re: 3, yes, e.g., ice cream store, $2-4.50. Re: 5, don't worry, it's perfectly clear—I'm just trying to inject levity into the starnom page ;) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:58, 27 February 2010 (EST)

 * Okay, I've addressed several of the issues. I'm still not sure what to do with phone numbers for the resort restaurants; all I can find is either WDW-DINE (usually) or the main resort phone number (more rarely).  WDW-DINE is covered at the beginning of the eat section, so I'd rather not put it in there, but I could do the resort number.  I just don't want to be misleading; I wouldn't want someone calling it and not realizing it's not a direct line to the kitchen or what have you.  I'm still looking for numbers for a few of the shops, but I'm not holding out great hope; it's entirely possible they don't have external phone numbers.  (WT-en) LtPowers 19:53, 5 March 2010 (EST)

Hey, folks, here's where we stand. I have no idea where consensus stands on promoting this article. I think Burmesedays and Jonathan are on board as supporting, but others have commented without making a decision one way or the other. Any final thoughts? -- (WT-en) LtPowers 16:26, 15 April 2010 (EDT)
 * After researching pretty much every way I know how, I believe I've gotten all the phone numbers I can. As far as I can tell, all remaining listings without phone numbers (shops, restaurants, and lounges alike) have no direct incoming line from outside the resort.  As I see it, there are two options: I can put in "parent entity" phone numbers (which would be the resort number for resort restaurants and lounges, the colocated restaurant in the case of Cooke's of Dublin and Wolfgang Puck's The Dining Room, and the main Downtown Disney number for everything else), or I can leave them as-is.  The former, to me, is misleading and of dubious value to the traveler, but I can do it if the latter option remains unacceptable.
 * I have retained checkin and checkout information as the Project:Accommodation listings policy page does not say anything about them being optional, and star articles must follow our style policies.

 * Could you mention whatever general number you can call in the buy intro? When some of the listings lack phone #s, a) it's not clear what to call to get something like an inventory check, and b) it looks incomplete.

 * When a policy page does not make something clear, we look to discussion and practice. In practice, most of our star articles omit check-in and check-out times. In discussion, the rough consensus was that we should include them only when they are an exception to the rule, and that we should therefore remove the fields from the listing editor (they would still be accessible by editing the page). This isn't an issue that I think should hold up a starnom, but it is relevant for printing—it's an issue of trimming the fat to reduce page counts. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 10:32, 21 April 2010 (EDT)

 * I see your point about clutter. Checkin/checkout times are hardly an issue at Disney hotels these days anyway, with early check-in allowing you to leave your bags with bell services and have them delivered to your room when it's ready.  I've removed the checkin/out times and will update the MOS accordingly.
 * I've put the Guest Relations number for Downtown Disney in the intro to the Buy section, along with instructions on what to do with it.
 * -- (WT-en) LtPowers 12:27, 21 April 2010 (EDT)

Double rooms for free?
"This guide uses the following price ranges for a standard double room: Budget	 $0-$150"

Is it maybe just a typing error, or do guests perhaps get complimentary hotel nights when buying something or what?

(WT-en) Ypsilon 06:13, 14 January 2011 (EST)

 * It's not a typing error, it's just another way to say "up to $150". (WT-en) LtPowers 14:41, 14 January 2011 (EST)

Waterpark fun and more
This needs to be addressed over in the Animal Kingdom section as well, but since there are 2 WPF&M options in the DtD region ... The wording that admission to Disney Quest and Typhoon Lagoon are free if you have purchased the Waterpark Fun and More option is very misleading. Admission to either takes one "entitlement" off your admission media. If you have a 2 day ticket and the fun and more option, you get 2 visits to fun and more locations, so if you goto Blizzard one day, Typhoon another, and then show up at DisneyQuest, you will not get admitted to DQ. "If you have the Waterpark Fun and More option on your ticket, addmission counts as one of your visits to these locations," or something along those lines is a more accurate description of how this type of addmission media works. I haven't looked at the wording over at Magic Kingdom yet for Oak Trail golf course, but I would imagine wording is similar ... --(WT-en) Hawkeyefla 12:44, 7 January 2012 (EST)
 * I didn't realize it was one per day. Probably not a huge deal though; if you only have a two-day ticket, who's going to go to both water parks and DisneyQuest?  =)  (WT-en) LtPowers 12:00, 8 January 2012 (EST)
 * You would be surprised how much people try to cram into a short visit. But with this ticket option, it's possible to have 4 days of admission with only a "2 day" ticket.  2d+FUN could be MK on day 1, a water park on day 2, Epcot on day 3, and DisneyQuest on day 4.  The admissions can be used in any combination desired, as long as all are used within 14 days of the first day they're used.  --(WT-en) Hawkeyefla 15:59, 8 January 2012 (EST)
 * Fair point. Feel free to revise as needed, otherwise I'll get to it sometime.  (WT-en) LtPowers 21:21, 8 January 2012 (EST)

title: Talk:Walt Disney World/Disney Springs


text:
Talk:Walt Disney World/Epcot

World Showcase
Should we maybe keep the World pavilions section in See, and move Future World down to Do? My plans for contributing to this COTM is pretty much limited to getting the world showcases up to speed (and maybe help with some mapping), as this is not really my type of place - but I find telling about the real places much more interesting (could use some help btw). But at least I'm going make sure that section has some good content. And I think separating those two, fits pretty nicely with our general idea of attractions versus activities. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 14:51, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Our traditional see/do divisions may not apply well to large theme parks. However, if we must use them, I don't see much reason to put all of Future World in "Do".  Only limited areas of Future World are interactive in any way.  I do look forward to seeing what you can do with World Showcase, though.  =)  (WT-en) LtPowers 20:24, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Ah, now that I've taken a look, I think your little historical tidbits are great, although I'm not sure how appropriate they are here. I'll have to think about that.  (WT-en) LtPowers 20:36, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Aw, come on, I spend good time on those - although I could agree that my contempt for these contraptions of cultural karaoke might shine through a few places (feel free to edit those), I also think visitors who are into these kind of things, and come to see the world in 30 minutes, will find the small back stories interesting - I mean if you have this printed out, you are reading about the places you see recreated in front of you. and it sets us apart from other guides, in a way I think is very appropriate for a place like wikivoyage. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:02, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Usually that kind of thing goes an in infobox, though. I'm certainly willing to get input from others.  =)  (WT-en) LtPowers 21:22, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
 * w00t! You don't think there is more than enough infoboxes smacked around everywhere already? :) --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:54, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
 * You know, probably it just seems like too much relative to the information that's there. Once we get those entries fleshed out more, your historical background might fit in just fine.  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:43, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

 * I agree, the historical information seems to me straightforwardly relevant and worth keeping. Not something that we need, but a great thing to have nonetheless. Hopefully these will be fleshed out with more practical information—to me it's not clear at all what is there or even what they are! (I've never been.) --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:21, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Map
Discussion copied from Talk:Walt Disney World

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 Wikivoyage-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.

-- (WT-en) LtPowers 11:47, 15 November 2008 (EST)

 * 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.
 * [[Image:Map - Walt Disney World - Epcot.png|250px]]
 * 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.
 * -- (WT-en) LtPowers 13:39, 16 November 2008 (EST)

 * wow! that map looks set to be a jewel! --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 19:03, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Here is Disney's official Epcot map for comparison:  (WT-en) LtPowers 19:53, 20 November 2008 (EST)

 * OK, I've done a bunch of work on the Epcot map and I think it's looking pretty usable (at least). The main changes were:

 * to crop out the resort area, which I think is acceptable since the hotels are annotated on the overview map;
 * to add an SVG image of Spaceship Earth (which is what makes that SVG file so frikkin' large); and
 * to dramatically skew the map away from an overhead, to scale, satellite-accurate image towards a more stylized map that hopefully will be more intuitive for visitors.

 * Thoughts? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:09, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Holy (bleep)! That is incredible! I definitely want to see something like that for our WDW park maps, it looks so dynamic and just totally freaking awesome.
 * I do have two potential objections though - I'm not entirely sure that taking out the resorts and leaving it up to the overview map is a good idea. The resorts are no longer on the main article, but the overview map is. I prefer to have that convinence where the map showing the location of the resorts is on the same page as the resort listings themselves.
 * And secondly, this isn't so much an objection, but more a comment about the, er, uniqueness (who am I kidding, awesomeness) of the map, is that a map like this will be much, much more difficult to make than a regular top-down view (I'm still rattling my brain trying to figure out how you pulled this off), which really limits the amount of people who could make such a map. This isn't a huge problem for WDW, since all you have to do is make just five such maps and we'll be set, but I think it's something we should keep in mind. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 13:39, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Thanks ;) It would be very easy to make a small Epcot resort map (in addition to the park map) from the same SVG. Personally, I'd rather keep the resorts off the park map just so it's easier to read the park map in article (also, most visitors to the park probably won't need the resort map?). That will take me all of 10 minutes, so I'll make one tonight.

 * Skewing the map is tricky without any support for 3-d rotation in Inkscape, but it's manageable. The more time intensive task is still the satellite trace, which LtPowers had already taken care of. So if anyone, ahem, wants to do more traces and then pass it on to me for skewing... --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:04, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

 * If we're going to start making additional maps, maybe it would be easier if we just did an Epcot overview map that was a regular top-down view (in other words, what LtPowers already did), showing where the resorts and theme parks are, and then have this theme park map with the neat perspective. (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 14:12, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

 * Love it! my only objections is find the "flagpoles" quite ugly, not sure if it's the "texture", if they are too thick, or what exactly is wrong with them. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 15:28, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

 * I've edited the flagpoles to be thinner, stroked, and added bases/tops. Look better? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:05, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

Alright, I threw together a map (which is basically a barely modified version of LtPowers' original map) showing the park and resorts to scale, with the resorts annotated. I don't know which resorts are where, exactly, so I've left it incomplete. I've also now burnt out on this one, so I'm hoping someone else will take over and finish what's left ;) If someone does, watch out for that gigantic svg object (the Epcot ball)—best to leave that layer turned off while editing, unless you have a really fast computer. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:41, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

 * I don't want to be too critical, because I think Peter's non-orthogonal map has several very good ideas in it. I never even considered skewing the map to mimic a different point of view; very good job coming up with that.  I also like the flagpoles with the flags.  The image of Spaceship Earth is a good idea, but I'm not sure it meshes well with the style of the map.
 * I think the biggest improvement, though, is outlining the buildings. I can't put my finger on why it helps, but it does.  I'll have to try doing that with my original overhead map and see how that works.
 * That said, the oblique view has some problems, and here's where I don't want it to seem like I'm dismissing Peter's excellent work. The image, to my eyes, looks weird because of the lack of perspective.  It looks, to my eyes, as if Future World is "curling" up.  It's not, but my eyes are expecting perspective in the image and not getting it.  Although -- after some experimentation, that might be fixable by rotating the skewed image to the left; look at the once-circle of Test Track -- the long axis of the now-ellipse should be horizontal in the image, as otherwise it looks like the conceptual "camera" was tilted when the image was "captured".  Fixing that may alleviate the problem.  I'll experiment with that, too.
 * Unfortunately, several of the issues I mentioned at the top of this section above still remain. I welcome any additional thoughts on them.
 * -- (WT-en) LtPowers 13:08, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

Star nomination (archive)
Here we are again, folks. I think I've covered everything in this area of Walt Disney World, but it's a lot more involved than Hollywood Studios was. I appreciate questions and comments, especially related to issues that might not have come up in the Studios nomination.

Note: I plan to be adding an Epcot resorts map within a few days, but I think the article is complete without it and I didn't want to wait to start getting input.

-- (WT-en) LtPowers 16:42, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

 * Support. Reads really well and is packed with info. A few of the restaurants seem to be missing hours, and more info for the Buy listings (nearly all of them are missing hours) would be nice, but otherwise it looks fine. Good work! (WT-en) PerryPlanet Talk 23:03, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
 * Thanks, I overlooked the hours for the Coral Reef and the ESPN Club. Kouzzina's hours are not yet set, AFAIK, since it's still in soft-opening mode.  As for buy, I'll see what I can do, but all of the shops in the park operate from opening to closing time; in the hotels it's pretty much "all day" but I can understand that specifics would be useful.  (WT-en) LtPowers 12:50, 30 August 2009 (EDT)
 * Update. I've added the resorts map. I put it in the Eat section because most of the items on the map are restaurants and because the Eat section had room for it.  =)  I also have added the Candlelight Processional event to the Annual Festivals section.  (WT-en) LtPowers 13:47, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

 * I'm very much aware it's my own little hobby horse, and I'll see if I can maybe do something to fix this myself, but either we should get rid of my little attempt to add some culture to the darn thing (which would make me sad, cause I really like it), or we need some work at the Italy, France and Canada sections in the world showcase. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 16:36, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

 * Not sure. The descriptions of the World Showcase pavilions are pretty long, and they seem anything but relevant to the matter at hand. (Although I admit I did the Germany, Italy, France and Canada ones myself.) Seriously, I doubt the average visitor would be enticed by the historical/cultural/religious/etc. value. However, other than that I am impressed with the way the rest of the article turned out. (WT-en) Jonathan 784 21:10, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

 * Support. Some Buy listings could use hours, but the article turned out nicely. I also think the descriptions are fun to read, so if anyone expands Canada, France, Germany and Italy, it would definitely be a star. (WT-en) Globe-trotter 06:39, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Update. I've tried my hand at improving the Germany, Italy, France, and Canada descriptions.  I'm still looking for hours for the shops in the resorts, but they're hard to find.  (On the other hand, they're generally open long hours; most visitors won't encounter any shops that are closed just because they've showed up too early or too late.)  (WT-en) LtPowers 21:48, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Almost. The only thing I'd really like to see before starring are the hours for buy listings in the resorts. Non-essential things: 1) I don't think it's necessary to repeat the resort addresses for every eat, drink, buy, etc. listing—you could just state in the directions field what resort the listing is in (as you already have done). 2) I suggest you revisit your initial worry with the map, and find a good way to make Spaceship Earth more prominent (if you want to resurrect the SVG object I made, it's available here. As you said, it's not at all obvious where it is, and it should be. Especially for someone unfamiliar with the park, who just wants to print the map—until I read the article, I knew it only as "that big Epcott ball." Those things said, this is a very solid article—nice work! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:51, 18 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I think the resort stores are usually open until 11 at night, and mostly they open up an hour or two before the parks open. That applies to the Disney resorts; for the Swan and Dolphin I can't be sure.  For the map, I'll see what I can do; there didn't seem to be a lot of reaction to my original concern so I left it with just a light outline around the sphere's circumference.  (WT-en) LtPowers 10:35, 22 September 2009 (EDT)

 * Update. Maps, prose, and listings have been updated per the above comments -- please review and see if they meet with your approval.  (WT-en) LtPowers 15:44, 1 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Should I assume the silence means approval? Or are there still improvements that must be made?  (WT-en) LtPowers 13:01, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Guess you should, my concerns have been adressed anyways, so i'd be happy to smack a Support after this one, great work. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 15:53, 8 October 2009 (EDT)
 * Promoted. There doesn't seem to be any remaining opposition.  Thanks for your input, everyone.  (WT-en) LtPowers 19:55, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

Photo alignment
I don't mean to be a stickler here, and I don't want to edit war with (WT-en) LtPowers, but seeing as how right-alignment is the norm for us, I'm going to insist on consensus before we make an exception in the case of the photo at Walt Disney World/Epcot. One of the reasons we normally put images on the right is because different left-aligned images cause all sorts of format problems on different browsers. With my current browser, this particular case causes this: It breaks up the text quite awkwardly and frankly, looks terrible. I don't see any reason why this image shouldn't be on the right with everything else. (WT-en) Texugo 20:16, 8 March 2010 (EST)

 * It's a basic principle of graphic design -- don't cluster all your non-text elements in the same place. With the photo on the right, it's shoved up against the infobox and the stave church photo.  All-right text looks amateurish and boring; it's always a good idea to provide some variety in placement of elements.  (WT-en) LtPowers 20:55, 8 March 2010 (EST)

 * And, I might add, this article passed a star nomination with flying colors and no one so much as said "boo" about photo alignment. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:56, 8 March 2010 (EST)

 * I agree with Texugo. Avoiding left aligned images is a principle upheld not only by well-established convention, but also by several discussions over the years (including an old starnom). It's especially important that this article, as a star article, conforms to our standards. Clusters don't look good, as you say, but that seems to me an argument to space the images out, rather than break up the text with left-aligned images. Why not simply move the picture of the American Adventure's pavilion to the American Adventure section? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:08, 8 March 2010 (EST)

 * Might I suggest that this debate should not be taking place on two different article talk pages at the same time, but at Project:How_to_add_an_image (or another guidance page if there is one more appropriate). It is no wonder there is confusion over this when the How to page mentions no preference for right or left aligned images. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:45, 8 March 2010 (EST)

 * I have opened a discussion at Project:How to add an image. (WT-en) Texugo 22:42, 8 March 2010 (EST)

Listing order
The order of listings in the Eat and Sleep sections was recently changed to be geographical instead of alphabetical. While I can see the point to an extent, I'm not sure it's the best idea. We generally prefer alphabetical listings, unless there's an obvious alternative. In the case of World Showcase, there is, but I'm not sure that's the case elsewhere in the park and at the resorts. (WT-en) LtPowers 20:35, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Perhaps spliting Eat and Sleep into two sections one for World Showcase and one for Futureworld? They are distinct enough areas within the park, especially for overall visitor perception. Doing that would allow for the geographical flow for World Showcase and the traditional alphabetic for Futureworld.  Futureworld first, World Showcase second, since that is the overall experience a guest using the maintrance would get when they visit Epcot. (WT-en) Hawkeyefla 16:40, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Yeah, but there are only four restaurants in Future World... Sunshine Seasons, Garden Grill, Coral Reef, and Electric Umbrella. That's not really enough for a separate subsection.  (And I'm not sure why you included "Sleep"....)   (WT-en) LtPowers 20:07, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

Fair enough. And Sleep mostly without thinking to be honest. Probably because at the time sleep is what I wanted. (WT-en) Hawkeyefla 14:55, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Template "index"
What are all those templates? The template itself is empty but maybe it’s useful for something else. Fractal (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That template was used by Wikitravel Press to format indices. It's been retained for possible future extension into the Books feature.  LtPowers (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Should we list it on Template index? Fractal (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It used to be, along with a couple of others used for print. Not sure why it was removed.  LtPowers (talk) 14:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It was removed here by User:Globe-trotter with summary "Print formatting: no more" Fractal (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Photographs
There are now too many images in the World Showcase section of this article. I understand the desire to have one photo of each pavilion, but it's not practical for the amount of text we have. They end up shoved down so they don't even line up with the proper paragraphs by the time we get to Canada. I would strongly recommend we go back to just four or five images in this section. Powers (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Walt Disney World/Epcot