Talk:Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)/Archive 1

Planning applications
The following content was removed 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 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 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 for the train system—Hogwarts Express (funicular) 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
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 changed  to the longer .  I would be happy to help facilitate a move back to (the shorter) —in the meantime, I've added yes to collapse some of the location/opening detail by default.  —Sladen (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 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. 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, added an explicit quote per WP:CITE so is perhaps clearer about what precisely the source says, and finally tried to ensure that the text matches 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)
 * 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  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'll let you add them. -- Dom497 ( talk ) 02:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I too am hopeful that the content becomes an excellent and useful article—it is the reason that the article was created. The citations state what the subject of the article is.  The citations state why the subject of the article came into existence.
 * I fully appreciate that other editors may have subsequently encountered this article with perceptions, preconceptions or viewpoints that the subject of the article is something else, perhaps based on its branding or the proximity of its two stations to theme-parks—such viewpoints are fine in other places, but on Wikipedia should not be allowed to cloud, alter or overrule Wikipedia's strict guidance for standards of citation, verifiability, copyright compliance or avoidance of original thought/research. —Sladen (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Balance
The following content was removed with the summary "removing this statement since the article is referring to the initial expansion in 2010, not Diagon Alley/Hogwarts Express in 2014":


 * Under consideration was how to keep attendance balanced between the adjacent parks.

I'm unsure how "Already, … are" could be referring to something that had previously happened. —Sladen (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The way you worded it in the article and the fact that the article was written in 2010, threw me off. Sorry about that!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 01:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Undiscussed removal of cited content
. Per WP:REMOVAL, please could you clearly explain the intent behind today's edits. From a casual glance at least the following appears to have been done: While myself and other editors appreciate enthusiasm in wanting to improve Wikipedia. It is extremely unfair to rely on the time of other editors to clean up and repair edits afterwards. Could I encourage you to either (a) spend some time bringing your proposed changes back up to the level of quality that the rest of the article was at before; or (b) performing a self-revert, and then carefully reapplying changes in small careful edits with appropriate summaries so that it is easier for others to fix.
 * Removed 20% of the cites in the article
 * Introduced spelling mistakes (eg. "bevil"→ "bevl" "bevi")
 * Introduced misleading statements (eg. "two trains with three compartments")
 * Introduced confusion of singular vs. plural (eg. The locomotive on the 70-metre (230 ft) long trains)
 * Introduced adjective numerical formatting errors (WP:HYPHEN)
 * Removed WP:ITALICS for naming

I'm loathed to WP:REVERT this immediately and would like to give you the time and opportunity to fix all of the above, and anything else you spot first. —Sladen (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If you cared to look at the cites, there were a lot of duplicates and many were unreliable. I never knew I had to ask you if I could delete a duplicate ref. This is pathetic. For the spelling mistakes, why don't you be bold and add the i rather than complain; I have never seen someone get so offended by a missing letter. I'll take responsibility for the compartments error. For the singular vs. plural, I guess I have bad grammar (?) because that sentence reads fine to me. And I have no idea what formatting errors I made; all numbers are using the convert template.


 * So all in all, stop complaining about little things if you can be bold and fix it yourself. We're human; we make mistakes; I'm not a God and you definitely aren't. -- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, I could not find anything in the article spelled "bevl"-- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: That spelling error is on you (just give me a minute to find the diff)-- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Here you go bud: . So before you start accusing me of things make sure you know what your talking about. Your the one making spelling mistakes. I'll go ahead and be bold and fix it for you.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The consolidation of the cites to the correct spelling of &lt;ref name="bevil-20140702"/&gt; is appreciated.  It took longer than expected to go through the edit history:
 * On 30 June 2015 the material by Dewayne Bevil was first used as a citation, being added as &lt;ref name="bevil-20140702"/&gt; (with two internals links in-use).
 * On 16 July 2015 a duplicate was added, (two + one in-use, the second without an explicit name).
 * On 22 July 2015 the duplicate was moved within its section and named for the first time as &lt;ref name="bevi-20140702"/&gt;, (two + two in-use; this name addition contained the typo missing the final 'l', and so failed to activate the automatic warning about identically named cites. Had it been correctly spelt by me using "surname-YYYYmmdd" it would have flagged up the duplication sooner.  This is an oversight for which I am very happy to apologise).
 * On 24 July 2015 both &lt;ref name="bevil-20140702"/&gt; and &lt;ref name="bevi-20140702"/&gt; were consolidated as &lt;ref name="bevi-20140702"/&gt; (four in-use)
 * On 25 July 2015, all four uses of &lt;ref name="bevi-20140702"/&gt; were consolidated back to &lt;ref name="bevil-20140702"/&gt; (four in-use)
 * —Sladen (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, when you added ref 37 (well...it's currently ref 37), it's missing a parameter and is displaying an error message. Want me to continue?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would encourage the continued fixing those issues highlighted. I would like encourage the avoidance of further WP:COPYVIO instances, and particularly not to remove administrative templates covering missing attribution.  Copyright and correct attribution is exceedingly important to Wikipedia.  In all dealings please try to remain WP:CIVIL and carefully review and supply WP:DIFFS prior to making assertions against other editors.  —Sladen (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Assertions against other editors???? You accused me my friend! You have no idea how pissed I am right now. I will also delete my sandbox since apparently I cannot make drafts on Wikipedia. You are one hell of a character Sladen.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 01:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the steps taken. —Sladen (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome for agreeing with you restricting my editing privileges.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 12:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Further cite removal
Further cites have been removed with the summary "citations should not be in the lead; remove 1 unreliable source". , please could help myself and others understand why the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation might be considered an unreliable source (WP:RS). —Sladen (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, if you cared to look at the actual revision, you would notice I actually removed two refs. I removed SBC simply because it's a duplicate ref (there are other ref's that support the same thing). The other ref I removed was unreliable. So next time, actually look at what I did than just making a silly assumption.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 12:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Duplicate refs" usually refers to a case where the same text/url is used more than once in an article but has not been consolidated using &lt;ref name="…"&gt;. The edit summary suggested that there was a difficultly when having citations in the lede. WP:CITELEAD states "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." and "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material."  We can see that the SBC cite no longer appears in the list of citations, following the edit above and so is unlikely to have been a duplicate. The cite itself is:


 * There would appear to be quite a bit of unique material in this (and the German-language original). This is the only English-language WP:RS I'm aware of which covers the factory floor and design offices, hence covering the design, construction and shipping of the trains.  It's a filmed-report so to make it easier for other editors to follow, the full quoteable material is a subset of: :::For years the Hogwarts Express that brought Harry and their friends to Hogwarts School of Magic has only existed in readers' imaginations and on the big screen. That is, until now.  A new attraction has opened in Universal Studios in Florida. A reproduction of the famous train was built in Switzerland by cable car producer Garaventa, it was an unusual assignment in many ways.
 * Istan Szalai: "It's a funicular like any other you'd find in tourist spots taking you up a mountain. The special thing here is that on the outside it looks like a steam-engine.  It's an illusion you want to give people."
 * The train is moved by a cable. Basically like a funicular but on flat terrain.  Garaventa has been working on it intensely for 2 and a half years.  During that time the project was top secret.
 * Istan Szalai: "With other cable cars it's the ride that makes it a special experience. People want to see nature, the landscape, the mountains and valleys.  That's not the case here.  When boarding this train, people want to enter Harry Potter's world.  You feel like you're riding in an old-fashioned train.  Looking out of the windows you see images instead of reality."
 * The train was built in Garaventa's factory in Goldau.
 * Josef Gisler: "All mechanical components here, first welded, then the surfaces were made and tested. Finally the parts were assembled before being transported by boat."
 * Five-hundred tonnes of material had to be shipped from Goldau to the United States. That's six coaches, two locomotives, and two extra coaches containing steering components.
 * It's nice steering the train move. When reading the book you imagine what it might look like.  Then when you see it for real, first in the film, and now this cable car, that's quite extraordinary.
 * I can't see other available cites duplicate all of this. Going back to WP:CITELEAD again "… the desire to aid readers in locating sources …".  Having an easily-accessible video cite containing a large amount of cite-material is likely to be a service to readers in additional to its direct requirement for WP:V. —Sladen (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You seriously offended me with all the accusations you made against me which weren't true. So until you admit that your in the wrong, I don't care what you think.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 18:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for re-addition of the SBC piece as a cite in the article. —Sladen (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Article Name
Ok, I know we already talked about this but I want to talk about it again. I'm proposing the article name be changed to Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando). This way, it doesn't imply it's an attraction nor train/railway. Also, this name would still convey the subject of the article perfectly as it's (obviously) talking about the HE at the resort. Thoughts?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 01:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The reason for not using Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando), Hogwarts Express (Florida) etc was because there is also a static "Hogwarts Express" present at the same location. —Sladen (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, so just for the sake of discussion (for now), what other possible article names would you consider.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 02:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I considered about a dozen Hogwarts Express (funicular) was the only unambiguous one I came up to. Suggestion welcome for alternatives.  —Sladen (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando attraction)?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 02:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando attraction) might be a suitable name for the static attraction at the entrance to the Hogsmeade area. It's not completely unambiguous though, and in the worst case it might be confused with the nearby Hogwarts Express (funicular) which is the subject of this article…  —Sladen (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Wait, what? Do you actually think the "static" HE is an attraction? It's pretty much a prop; or even a photo-spot!!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 02:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * A photo-prop or similar would match the meaning of the term "attraction" that myself and other readers are likely to be familiar with; cf. "tourist attraction". Ideally a name should be unique and unambiguous when compared to all other items listed on the Hogwarts Express (attraction) disambiguation page.  —Sladen (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * How about Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando funicular attraction on a track but isn't really a railway? ;) -- Dom497 ( talk ) 02:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * A long name would likely fail WP:CONCISE. If the name contained an assertion not supported by sources, it would likely fail the requirement to be both accurate and neutral as required by WP:NPOVTITLE.  —Sladen (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It was a joke Sladen, a joke. I'm not new to Wikipedia, I know the policies. Anyways, here are the 3 article names that I think would suit this article the best: Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando attraction), or Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando funicular attraction), or Hogwarts Express (funicular attraction).-- Dom497 ( talk ) 12:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The second and third would likely meet the requirements for being uniquely unambiguous per WP:NCDAB. Both in this case would be longer than necessary for the purposes of unique identification, so WP:CONCISE would guide towards re-shortening back to what is the minimum necessary for uniqueness, which would likely be Hogwarts Express (funicular).  Should a similar Hogwarts Express-branded funicular railway be constructed in the future at another location in the world, then it would make sense to introduce a location into the parenthetical disambiguation as well.  —Sladen (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Universal is already planning to build one in Hollywood (but it hasn't been officially announced) so I would think the third name is good for now; and when they announce the Hollywood version, then the article can be moved again to the second name. Agree?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 12:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I hadn't found anything direct about Hollywood. Keeping to WP:CONCISE, shortest unique names would probably be Hogwarts Express (Orlando funicular) and Hogwarts Express (Hollywood funicular).  But we're stuck with WP:CRYSTALBALL until something happens; who knows what form anything built in Hollywood might take; eg. land availability, arrangement of the site, where/if passengers need to be transported similar distances.  If something similar was deemed necessary, there would likely be some saved development costs by using the existing funicular solution as a template.  We'll have to see.  I look forward to seeing a good article in due course! —Sladen (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The HE in Hollywood is something only enthusiasts (aka me) know about! Anyways, so Hogwarts Express (funicular attraction) is good?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 22:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:CONCISE states "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area.". Therefore Hogwarts Express (funicular) would appear to be satisfactory and optimal in meeting the requirements of "brevity" and having "information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area".  —Sladen (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * But the HE is not just a funicular, it's also an attraction.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Cites determine what Wikipedia can state. Are there are there any proposals or suggestions for single words that would uniquely provide the required disambiguation per WP:CONCISE, and which are shorter than funicular?  ("train", "rail", "ride", "attraction" aren't sufficiently unique to be unambiguous). —Sladen (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

1. There are no single words that can convey a funicular attraction.

2. We both agreed (somewhat) that the HE was a funicular and an attraction. Also, given that there is an attraction component, the current name for the article is technically misleading.

3. Hence, Hogwarts Express (funicular attraction) satisfies all the policies you've linked since that is as short of a name as your going to get.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the difference between things that are unique vs. non-unique properties within the field of Hogwarts Express-things. "People mover" or "Funicular" are unique (suitable).  "Train", "Ride", "Attraction" are non-unique (unsuitable).  Of those that are unique, "funicular" is the shorter and more precise.  —Sladen (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * People-mover is better than funicular.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ . —Sladen (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

GAN
On that note, I think the article can go for a GAN. Agree?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If the article is no longer and felt to be settled enough to receive editing/feedback by other editors, then this might be a logical step.  I will not seek to influence the judgement of others in respect of GAN proposal in this case.  —Sladen (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox passenger vehicles
Per WP:BRD I have partially restored the missing 80% of the rolling stock. This includes 100% of the passenger accommodation. But without mentioning British Rail Mark 1, only the generic form. —Sladen (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Reception in lede
Per WP:BRD a revert should lead to discussion. The following text "Public response to the attraction has been positive, praising the realism and uniqueness of the overall experience." was re-included in the article with the edit summary "per policies, the lead should have something about every section within the article. This type of statement exists in FA articles (Falcon's Fury)" (WP:OSE). This was subsequently tagged with. —Sladen (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Connector Train music
I have restored the date of recording (25 March 2014) and title of the northbound piece ("Connector Train – Hogsmeade to London"). These give useful context for when components of the window sequence were developed, and insight into the internal development naming, ie. "Connector Train". —Sladen (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:2014 establishments in Florida
Per WP:BRD I have restored the Category:2014 establishments in Florida until it can be demonstrated (with reference to policy) that the use of the Category:2014 establishments in Florida is incorrect for a $something opened in Florida in 2014. —Sladen (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * A ride would not be an establishment, a ride would only be opened or introduced. CDRL102 (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done a replacment with Category:2014 introductions and Category:2014 in rail transport. These are less-used, but hopefully reasonable cataloguing if Category:2014 establishments in Florida is felt to be misleading.  —Sladen (talk) 08:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The categories to this article should really be a similar nature of other rides of Universal so use those for reference. Whether or not this is deemed an actual "rail service" to fall under rail transport I'm not sure. CDRL102 (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the category was re-added by ten weeks later.  —Sladen (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Page name
I feel the name of this article should either be Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort), Hogwarts Express (theme park ride) or Hogwarts Express (theme park attraction). People mover doesn't sound like a good disambiguation word, as the books Hogwarts Express is also a people mover. The name should therefore say the location of this Hogwarts Express, which would be in line with how the Wizarding World article is - The Wizarding World of Harry Potter (Universal Orlando Resort) - or explain the ride type, similar to The Incredible Hulk (roller coaster). CDRL102 (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, but Sladen thinks otherwise.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with CDRL102 as well. "People mover" just doesn't seem right.--  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 17:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I would certainly encourage looking for alternative names, the difficulty becomes finding names that meet the requirement of WP:DISAMBIG and WP:CONCISE. Names that are (a) three words, (b) mis-leading with respect to what the cites say, and (c) non-unique compared to other items on Hogwarts Express (attraction)/Hogwarts Express (Orlando)/Hogwarts Express (Universal Studios Orlando) disambiguation list are unlikely to be suitable.  If there's now, retrospectively, felt to be an issue with Hogwarts Express (people mover) I would be happy to support moving it back to Hogwarts Express (funicular) until a better (compliant) solution is identified—as {[xt|(funicular)}} is shorter and more precise.  —Sladen (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we take into account, to a certain extent, what people will most likely search to find this article? "Ride", "attraction" and "Universal Orlando" all come to my mind while "funicular" and "people mover" do not.--  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 18:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, we have various policies that offer good guidance on disambiguation and article naming; those come to mind based on the queries above are: WP:NWFCTM "many topics on Wikipedia are more interesting or pertinent to particular groups, one potential criterion to be avoided is what "first comes to mind".", WP:CONCISE "… sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area" (in this case, trains/railways). WP:NATURALDIS "when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary.". , did you have a particular policy in mind?  —Sladen (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with, "when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary", is that the amount of detail necessary will be different for every person. As it stands now, I don't think "funicular" or "people mover" best describe the article (I only agreed to people mover because it is better than funicular). The article names proposed by other users however, I do think give the perfect amount of detail necessary; though personally I would lean more towards Hogwarts Express (funicular attraction), and as disscussed before, when Hollywood announces their version, article name becomes Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando funicular attraction). Is it long? Maybe. But it represents the article pretty good.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 20:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Replacing (the non-unique) "attraction" with "themed" would give Hogwarts Express (themed funicular) and would probably still pass WP:NPOVTITLE by being factual—it is a funicular that is themed. —Sladen (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But "themed funicular" does not include the attraction part.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 22:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * attraction is … (a) non-unique, (b) disputed, (c) superfluous. (See multiple discussions above).  —Sladen (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There is another approach that could be taken—the ambiguity issue is arising from the presence of the static Hogwarts Express attraction at the entrance to the themed Hogsmeade area. One option might be to go for Hogwarts Express at Orlando Studios Florida and to add a paragraph that additionally covers the original static attraction as another section.  There are a couple of the extant sources which we encountered that do refer to the static attraction in passing.  —Sladen (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * By that proposal Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort) would seem to be the more appropriate name for this page. CDRL102 (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In honestly, I wasn't familiar with the term funicular until this article came along, I'm sure I came across it, but never had to look it up to understand what it meant until it was on a rides article. At the end of the day, per the park, this is a theme park attraction/ride like the roller coasters, motion simulators etc so it should be given a ride term over a confusing, non-theme park related term. CDRL102 (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT may be useful. (a) A motion simulator doesn't move locations, (b) a roller coaster doesn't go A→B, (c) a "ride" doesn't require a destination ticket for a different theme-park.  I appreciate that those with a theme-park interest may have arrived at this article with preconceptions, but I would hope that these can be set aside when reviewing the available citation sources and making edits based upon those sources.  —Sladen (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with Hogwarts Express (funicular attraction)???-- Dom497 ( talk ) 14:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I really think it would need to be Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort), and looking at what the Disney park trains are called, I think this is appropriate for this. CDRL102 (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine but info about the "static" Hogwarts Express needs to stay out of the article. Adding info about a "second" HE would fail the GA criteria (#3).-- Dom497 ( talk ) 16:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed on that one, I don't think there is confusion for about 99% of people so it shouldn't be an issue, i'm sure if we go back through pages, there are static things in parks and rides and the static things aren't referenced. CDRL102 (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The criteria for the new name should be the simplest possible. Since there is already a Hogwarts Express (attraction), the next logical step would be to name this one Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort), which would put it in line with the various roller coasters around the country that share names, such as Goliath (Six Flags Over Georgia) and Goliath (Six Flags Magic Mountain). There's also another possibility ...

The (attraction) page is really a disambiguation page, so it should be renamed Hogwarts Express (disambiguation) and this article should become Hogwarts Express (attraction) since it is the highest-profile version and, most likely, is the one the reader is looking for.

-- McDoob AU93  21:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Can I conclude to say we move this page to Hogwarts Express (attraction) and also move the current Hogwarts Express (attraction) to Hogwarts Express (disambiguation)? CDRL102 (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with Hogwarts Express (attraction) since there is technically a Hogwarts Express attraction in London (literally). I agree the the disambiguation page should be moved, but for this article, Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort) or Hogwarts Express (funicular attraction) would be the best names, in my opinion.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 03:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, Can I conclude to say we move this page to Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort) and also move the Hogwarts Express (attraction) to Hogwarts Express (disambiguation)? CDRL102 (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think Hogwarts Express (UOR) is less confusing and fits the subject better. I'd support a move to that name. -- McDoob  AU93  16:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I would support that move as well.--  Astros 4477  ( Talk ) 17:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC) }}

Route Diagram


I like what you added but I have two concerns.


 * 1) The route is not a straight line
 * 2) The "fare zones" actually occur in the queue line (where the passenger's tickets are scanned)

Once these are fixed, the diagram can be re-added.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 12:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a WP:ROUTE template diagram (vs. a map—there is a link to geographically-accurate map of the route in the infobox). The border lines correspond to the where the route crosses from the edge of park A to the backlot, and from the backlot to the edge of park B (GRZ≈Grenze≈border).  I can't see anything about ticket scanning, which as I understand it is prior to boarding.  —Sladen (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm. So what is the point of having a inaccurate diagram of the route (in terms of the path/layout) when there is an accurate one in the infobox? Also, before the people enter the queue, their tickets are scanned. Based off the legend of the template, the dotted line is supposed to represent a "fare zone" or "border". So technically, the fare zone is where the tickets are scanned. So if anything, there should be two dashed lines for each park, one for the queue and for the border of the parks.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 21:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , RDTs are schematic diagrams: think Tube Map vs. geographic map. —Sladen (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC) I'm not aware of any mention or connection to ticket checking or "fare zones", and I'm not sure where this idea might have come from.


 * I guess. However, what if you were to copy the image produced by the template, throw it into photoshop and manipulate it to look similar to the actual layout (if you don't know PS, then I can do it)? Then, we could remove the link in the infobox to further reduce the length of the infobox.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * And regarding the ticket checking, are you not aware that before guests are allowed to enter the queue, their ticket is checked?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, would you mind updating the map so that the stations have the handicap symbol (since both stations are accessible)? I tried doing it but that template is one heck of a complicated maze of random letters and options.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Updated 2× 'BHF'→'ACC'. A raster screenshot manipulated in GIMP/Photoshop would have been much harder, which is why such methods are heavily discouraged on Wikipedia.  For maintainability and subsequent editing, vector SVG files (made with Inkscape) are the preference for diagrams and non-photographic images.  —Sladen (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC) I remain unclear about the association between ticket checking and a schematic diagram adjacent to the Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort) section.  Hopefully the cites and article in Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort) and the lede cover the pre-boarding ticket inspectors.


 * Either way, it's quite useless to have two "maps", so it's either the one in the infobox or this one (I'm leaning more to the this one and removing the infobox one; also from a reader's POV, there is no way to tell if the infobox map is even accurate).-- Dom497 ( talk ) 13:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The RDT and OSM geolinks cover separate angles, which is why both exist for most relevant articles (and where they don't, please do help us to add them). The  and  links provide absolute geodata locations in relation to the wider surrounding, whilst an article's RDT provides concise topology inwardly—both are widely prevalent within Wikipedia. , your constructive suggestion to change the station BSicons 'BHF'→'ACC' has been heard and implemented, and additionally the word 'perimeter' above the fence-lines has been added; please could you consider self-reverting the earlier removal .  —Sladen (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I will re-add once the discussion is complete (just following what you said earlier). What I'm suggesting is that the "Route Map" parameter be removed upon adding the map that you created. For the "Route Map", though we know is accurate, there is no way to verify it's accuracy. From the looks of it, anyone can edit OpenStreetMap making it extremely unreliable (just like Wiki!). So overall, your map is fine since it lays out the key features of the track while the "Route Map" is supposed to represent that actual layout, even though it really isn't (for example, the passing loop is not illustrated on OpenStreet).-- Dom497 ( talk ) 15:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reassuring confirmation that the RDT "is fine". The RDT is fully editable, so can be edited later if any other edits come up with additional queries.
 * Regarding the separate queries about OpenStreetMap: Yes, the idea of Wikipedia and OpenStreetMap is to produce legally reusable, fully editable libre content, this of course means that that "anyone can edit" both Wikipedia and OpenStreetMap—is not being used as citation source but for illustration to Wikipedia's readers. The passing loop has been on OSM since 12 July 2014 (over one year).  Based on your suggestion I have updated the way link to an relation so that the station nodes and passing loops are also highlighted; thank you for the prompting.
 * —Sladen (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have re-added the template and removed the link in the infobox since you added it as an external link at the bottom of the article.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 19:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:GEO data
Inline geo-data was reverted from the article with the summary "why do we need coord's for entrances and stations? We don't need precise coord's, the general coord for the location of the attraction is good enough". The has been retained. As the WP:REVERT was probably(?) done on the basis of WP:BRD, and discussion has not been opened subsequently; I would like to propose restoration of the inline geo-data in a close, or similar form to that originally added. —Sladen (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll start the discussion by asking the same question, Why do we need coord's for entrances and stations?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 12:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:GEOCODE contains an overview of why it is desirable to add geo-data to articles. —Sladen (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So based off that, I would suggested we add two sets of coord's in the infobox (and leave the coord's out of the actual text in the article to avoid unnecessary duplication); one of the north station and one for the south. Plus, doing this would be better than the current coord as it is just a coord along a random section of the track.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the positive response. The mid-point coordinate is that; a mid-point (in this case, translated approximately 15 metres to be more intuitively placed on the track, owing of the slight 'C' shape over the length of the route).  To implement your suggestion would probably be possible with the following:  (a) remove the mid-point from the collapsible-section of the infobox and revert to the original   at the bottom, as this will avoid the Template talk:Coord that is occurring from the use of ; (b) insert the station coordinates into the infobox in-lieu of this.  —Sladen (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ . This also produces a quite satisfying map when clicking on the . Thank you for your suggestions. —Sladen (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

SBC news video
The WP:EL link to the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation piece on the Hogwarts Express' construction, on the SBC/Swissinfo WP:YT channel was removed with the summary "removing random link". AFAICT, this was not random, and is not a copyright violation—it appears to be one of the few occasions when an link to external content (which just happens to be hosted legitimately on Youtube) makes sense. —Sladen (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, bad edit summary on my end. The video is the same as the video present in the SBC reference and therefore there is no need to have it as an external link (I also believe it breaks policy if the external link is already part of a ref).-- Dom497 ( talk ) 22:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the confirmation of a "bad edit summary". It would assist the discussion to have the precise words of the relevant policy to refer to.  Please could you link to the policy so that we can all discuss it equally.  —Sladen (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * External links-- Dom497 ( talk ) 02:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:EL is linked already (second word in this discussion). Which precise words are being referred to?  —Sladen (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I figured you would be bold enough a figure out that "References and citation" might be a good place to read. But anyways, References and citation: "Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section. Exceptions—websites that can be both references and external links—include any official sites for the article topic, or websites that are specifically devoted to the topic, contain multiple subpages, and meet the above criteria."-- Dom497 ( talk ) 15:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for referring to WP:ELDUP. The SBC video would appear to be "specifically devoted to the topic".  —Sladen (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Compartments
, please self-revert and clean-up Special:Diff/822551547 ; changing 21 compartments to 14 compartments per train introduces inaccuracy. (2 trains × 3 carriages × 7 compartments × 8 passengers). —Sladen (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Where does it say 8 passengers per compartment?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 14:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up. Seems like there are inconsistencies is some of the refs.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 14:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Should all be fixed now.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 14:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

---
 * . appreciations for Special:Diff/822791827 restoring three carriages/21 compartments information.  Original reply: Prior to the first edits by a  back in 2015 (eg. before Special:PermanentLink/669320997 ) it contained roughly the following, (with added   and  ) :
 * 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 pair of Hogwarts Express trains travel forwards from north-to-south, and backwards from south-to-north. Each corridor coach passenger vehicle has three doors, and seven compartments.  Each compartment holds up to eight seated passengers and has its own projection system instead of windows.
 * Seemingly shorter, more precise, unambiguous and only needed saying once. However, the "How the Hogwarts Express Works" citation was removed in this edit Special:Diff/672940882 (by ).  Then, in a previous Good Article review Special:Diff/694080147,  took considerable time to reply to the explicit request for review, with numerous comments including "you state twice in relatively short proximity that there are twenty-one (which I would make 21) compartments. I would leave the three carriages, which is a useful reminder.".
 * In summary, had the original wording remained or even just its accompanying citations, we would not be a situation two years down the line where the same editor is requesting citations after inserting inaccurate information. Feel free to restore some of these citations/material if they are now felt useful again. —Sladen (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Refs 1 to 3 are unreliable so thats why they were removed. Anyways, I added back one of the sentences that were removed.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 15:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , added the first one (useful but "unreliable"…) in Special:Diff/824475487 to Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort). Perhaps this is also a solution for various of the other useful reader-focused information that got purged?  —Sladen (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Project 722 Kings Cross plans
Special:Diff/826323324 removed the text "By December 2011 Universal Creative had created the plans for the interior and exterior of King's Cross station and its platform." covering the date of the design of the Kings Cross (Project 722 north station for the Connector Train) and the accompanying citations:

with the edit summary "Source is a personal blog. Also, the publisher of the blog appears to be a professional animator so it is possible he generated these images himself". Indeed, Nic Henderson was the lead designer for Kings Cross/Gringotts. —Sladen (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source that says he was the lead designer? And if so, how can we verify that the blog is actually his and not a fake?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 22:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In Special:Diff/826466039, plans relocated to #Further reading with via. Henderson was not mentioned in the prose.  —Sladen (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Seilbahnen International
You recently added a Seilbahnen International magazine to the Further Readings section. I skimmed through parts of it and I wonder if we could use some of that content in the prose (maybe create a sandbox with your proposed changes from the FAC and then we can work on it there?). However, I don't really know if its a reliable source. It seems kind of legitimate but what do you think?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 19:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea! Hopefully SI is reliable, …it is normally published in the German-language, but once a year there is an English-language "best of" version targeted at the American Ski-resort operator audience, and published in time for distribution at their annual National Ski Areas Association conference.  This "best of" with the American target-audience explains why there are so many articles from all of the different companies put together in one place.  But that is rather handy for us!  Haven't heard any objections to the other content/image tweaking, so perhaps lets start with applying that again, and then its ready for the additional cites from SI.  Ideally lets work on the article directly (and not in multiple sandboxes).  —Sladen (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You did it again... you added content without sources. Also, I thought you wanted opinions from editors because those original edits from a few days ago were "experimental".-- Dom497 ( talk ) 22:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , per "then its ready for the additional cites from SI.", hopefully other editors can help add these… —Sladen (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Lets work here so we can avoid including unsourced information. I don't understand why this is so hard.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 22:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , please work on the article. So that the history is correct, and copyright information is preserved.  —Sladen (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. I don't have a problem with that. But with the content you add, include sources. You've re-added the following paragraph twice without sources: "The north station is named King's Cross and is located within the Universal Studios Florida at the rear of the London area, with its entrance adjacent to Diagon Alley. The south station is named Hogsmeade and located in Hogsmeade area of the Islands of Adventure theme-park. Both stations have ticket checks, with a ticket office for those needing to upgrade their admission ticket, followed by prior to queueing facilities and entry onto the station platform."-- Dom497 ( talk ) 22:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Awesome, and how better could this be worded/cited? —Sladen (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, use the sources that are already in the article (don't expect me to be BOLD when you aren't). Also use maps (like Google Maps) as sources (if that's even allowed, I don't know). I'm not sure how to verify that there are ticket offices.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 22:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hogsmeade Station (22985179850).jpg Hard to keep track of all these reverts flying around. Is there problem with any of the pictures/images being added?  This revert Special:Diff/828654896/828652306 removed a corresponding image of the Hogsmeade booking/ticket office + its queue.  —Sladen (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted back to a state before you "mass-edited" the article with a mix of sourced and unsourced material. By all means re-add the image. Just don't add unsourced material.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So, to triple check. All the images are fine, and all the sub-headings are fine?  —Sladen (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If the content within the sub-headings is entirely sourced and there is no evidence of original research then yes. But you don't need my permission. Like I've been mentioning over and over again, just don't add unsourced material.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding this link. It is from an unreliable source and could of easily been photoshop'ed.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seems so: in this picture the window has been airbrushed out completely, and the black grill also moved downwards. —Sladen (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm asking this question in the interest of readers. Is there really a need for some of these images you added? I have a 13-inch screen and all the images are squeezing the text in. I don't see any value to or  (given that a similar one already is in the article).-- Dom497  ( talk ) 01:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

is also questionable in value; given that there is another picture of the train shows it and part of the track/catwalk system and a similar image already in the infobox.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 01:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Curved projection screen patent
Mid-2014 patent for the curved projection screens used on the window-side of each compartment:



—Sladen (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

gauge
Any idea why they chose this nearly unique gauge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.226.105 (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Nope. My guess is that they ran out of ideas.... Bang. (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * ,, 1,800 mm is probably six metric feet. eg. an approximate dimension of 6 ft was verbally requested, and the real engineers used 1800 mm for real work.  Have not yet found a source for this.
 * That, because the track system funicular, each train has a set of double-flanged wheels on its outer side, and flat rollers on its inner side (as seen at the passing loop)—29mm tolerance would make little difference. —Sladen (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Some pictures of termini appear to show a broader gauge pair of rails which are rusty and a narrower pair that are shiny and offset away from the platform. It seems the wider set are only to match the dummy wheels on the engine and the narrow ones are the ones that carry/guide the vehicle.
 * Would the gauge of 1800mm refer to a "dummy" track in the termini and the actual track be standard gauge? Squizzler (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Funicular
The reference stating that "two trains will pass at the midpoint along parallel tracks much like a funicular" is correct, but "much like" is the key phrase! The similarity is that the trains do seem to be controlled by a single stationary engine, and therefore will always start together and pass at the same point. But unlike a funicular the weight of one train running downhill does not assist in lifting the other uphill. I doubt there is any grade at all. The cable is used in order to control train movements from a central location and to avoid having any motive power on board. I wanted to clarify this point. I think inevitably railway enthusiasts will be interested in the details. JoeBrennan (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)