Talk:Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)

Sources

I've been hunting for material covering the testing of the train itself (ie. not the attraction/illusion built inside and around the train). So far I found:

• USFguy (3 June 2012). "Project numbering". Orlando United Forums. Project 7717 - USF Station (north) (BLD2012-03434) … Project 3641 - IOA Station (south) (BLD2012-03437) … Project 4691 - Connecting track for north and south stations (BLD2012-03436)
• Michael (21 June 2012). "Hogwarts Express Speculation". Parkscape. Permit Links: North Station South Station Connector {{cite web}}: External link in |quote= (help)
• gainscock (27 March 2014). "Hogwarts Express Testing at Universal" (video).
• Elliott, Jeff. "From the Trenches of Amusement". Theme Park Insider. Archived from the original on 25 June 2012. Retrieved 4 July 2015. We do have some plans that have come to the surface recently that show some construction plans for Islands of Adventure for their side of the Hogwarts Express. According to the picture below, the terminal will be nestled instead the two Dragons on top of what is right now a pond. … Project 3641
• "Lost Continent Demolition = Evidence for Hogwarts Express?". Archived from the original (Master case: DEM2012-00003) on 17 February 2012. Retrieved 4 July 2015. On January 20th, 2012, Universal filed permits for the demolition of building 234A and a tent located within The Lost Continent. … building 234A is "The Frozen Desert" building and the tent is directly behind it.
• Universal Orlando (4 January 2014). "Hogwarts Express on track" (via [1]). Retrieved 4 July 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |format= (help)

—Sladen (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Planning applications

The following content was removed[2] with an edit summary "remove permits as it is original research as it stands now. If additional sources can be found, that is another story". (This edit was partially undone in [3] to restore other material):

The Hogsmeade south station was developed as Project 3641, the track-related structures as Project 4691, and the King's Cross north station as Project 7717. Universal Studios applied to Oakland City Council on 1 June 2012 for building permits for the three parts, and which were subsequently individually granted during 2014.

—Sladen (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The following content was removed[4] with an edit summary "removing statement about city of Orlando "hiding" plans since the source provided does not mention anything that it has to do with the Harry Potter expansion/Hogwarts Express".

On 29 March 2012 John McReynolds of Universal Studios sent a letter to the South Florida Water Management District asking for plans to be removed from public view.

The corresponding permit (48-00103-S) was application (120229-14)—the plans of which correspond to those being requested for hiding from the electronic record.

—Sladen (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Even with all of these "sources" there is no way to say for sure that it has anything to do with the Hogwarts Express.--Dom497 (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

IOA station end.

—Sladen (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Cable car (railway)

Per WP:BRD, I have restored[5] vehicle_type=Cable car (railway) for the train system—Hogwarts Express (funicular)#Background contains a detailed explanation of what the articulated cable-car is model after: Each train is an articulated cable car formed of five sections: a replica of steam-locomotive GWR 4900 Class 5972 Olton Hall (as 5972 Hogwarts Castle) and its tender plus a set of three passenger vehicles approximating the appearance of British Railways Mark 1 carriages.. The system's raison d'être (clearly documented with the available cites) is to transport passengers from A→B and B→A, because B is where development land was available. Hence passengers require a ticket for their destination and leave the station upon reaching it. —Sladen (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

@Sladen: I've never been a fan of a large infobox. I feel like this one is starting to get big. Yes, part of the reason is because the template provides so many parameters but I still think we should cut down. If I had to choose, I would say we can remove "Track gauge", and "Participants per group". Thoughts?--Dom497 (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree about removing "Participants per group"/"Theme"/"Music"/opening dates. This edit[6] changed {{Infobox rail line}} to the longer {{Infobox attraction}}. I would be happy to help facilitate a move back to (the shorter) {{Infobox rail line}}—in the meantime, I've added[7] |small=yes to collapse some of the location/opening detail by default. —Sladen (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sladen: I'm starting to become concerned with how your approaching the content within the article; as in you think this is an article about a railway. It's an attraction that so happens to use a railway-like system. Just because it uses a cable to pull it along the track does not warrant the use of the {{Infobox rail line}} infobox. The article is about the Hogwarts Express as a whole (the queue, the experience, etc), not just about it being a "railway" (which IMO it isn't even; just uses a funicular system). The reason I'm bringing this up is because the wording you are using in your edits are making the Hogwarts Express not sound like an attraction, meanwhile I'm making it sound like an attraction. Just want to discuss this with you so we don't continue to partially revert each other's edits.--Dom497 (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Personal opinion ("IMO") is not relevant, what matters is what the cited sources say (see: WP:CITE/WP:RS/WP:V). With regard to the latest edit I have tried to take steps to repair the breakage introduced[8], added an explicit quote[9] per WP:CITE#Additional annotations so is perhaps clearer about what precisely the source says, and finally tried to ensure that the text matches[10] the citation. Whilst I appreciate that editors may have their interests or perceptions that have brought them to this article, I hope those can be set aside in the course of editing and the material kept closely matching the available sources. —Sladen (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sladen: There are many RS that talk about the Hogwarts Express as an attraction. Can we at least agree that the Hogwarts Express is an attraction that uses a funicular rail system? Also, I don't see why your adding quotes to the references; it's making the list look really really messy and is completely unnecessary.--Dom497 (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD currently includes the sentences "funicular railway people mover and attraction", and further down following a survey that suggested potential passengers saw the connecting Hogwarts Express as an attraction instead of transportation between the parks. Hopefully these two adequately give context about a perception of the facility also being seen as an attraction. Without giving areas of the article WP:UNDUE, are you able to suggest how the topic of perception-as-an-attraction could be improved?

For the additions of |quote= it was added because a citation was not able to support the statements being added. By highlighting precisely and unambiguously what a source does state, it is hopefully less likely that a claim will be changed to a conflicting one. An explicit |quote= can help to focus the mind and those of readers. In this instance—following the repeated introduction of wording not supported by a citation—a |quote= is probably useful to have to maintain verifiability of Wikipedia.

For the number of cites: what matters is that the content on Wikipedia reflects what those articles state, and not what one may think an article states. A few weeks ago [11] an editor with your username reflected upon provided cites offered and noted when I think about, I actually think it's half ride half transportation. This was in itself a long way to come. I am grateful, and I hope it can lead to further reconsideration away from preconceptions and towards research and careful representation of available sources. —Sladen (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

What I meant when I left that message on your talk page is exactly what I meant above (that it is an attraction with a funicular system; half/half). When you proposed adding the train infobox, I thought you thought that the HE was literally a train. Like I've mentioned before, I'm hoping to get this to GA and maybe even FA. But if we keep going the way we're going, that ain't going to happen any time soon. Oh, and in terms of the quotes on the refs, I'm still semi-against it, but whatever, I let you add them. --Dom497 (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)