Talk:Wizarding World of Harry Potter

I took out a chunk of unwikipedia standard information (such as the FAQ) and since it all semed to be added by the Wizarding World Unofficial WebSite as advertisement to their site.

Nelson325 15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Person Issue
The last part of this article is in first person-plural tense; should I change it (get rid of "us", as well as some of the informal language)?

--Romulus 07:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Merger Discussion
I'm trying to decide why this merits its own article. None of the other islands within the park has its own article, nor do they need it. There's nothing there that (a) couldn't be added to the WW sub-section of the main IOA article or (b) is so different from the IOA article that it should be on its own. I didn't feel like "being bold," as the Wikipedia notes about mergers suggests, as I wanted to hear from the Potter community (who I presume is handling this article) why it is separate. Thanks.

McDoobAU93 14:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason is that Harry Potter is qualified as it's own world...and a Harry Potter theme park is certainly going to be a bigger attraction than possibly the island itself! People from all over the world will be visiting it, and there will be tons of information that'll overwhelm the Islands of Adventure wiki.


 * The current way that the IOA article is written, I would disagree. Looking ahead to late 2009, I foresee the IOA article's Wizarding World subheading discussing when it was announced, some of the sets included and what attractions are there.  That's all that really belongs there, as Wikipedia is not a travel guide.  Similarly, there is not a need for a brick-by-brick description of the island's contents.


 * That said, the issue of notability comes into play. There are articles discussing Fantasyland and Tomorrowland, each with subheadings of the implementations at the various Disney parks.  This will be the only Wizarding World anywhere, according to Universal's contract (there won't be any Potter attractions at the other Universal parks, existing or future), so in that it becomes notable.


 * I don't see Wizarding World "overwhelming" the park. I was there on Saturday morning, and fully 80-90 percent of the traffic was heading into Marvel Super Hero Island, where the park's largest current attractions are located.  If anything, WW will balance things back out, which will be a good thing for the park.


 * How about this ... perhaps a separate WW article could look at the history of its development, of the brinksmanship between Disney and Universal in landing the Potter license. I am pretty sure there are verifiable sources out there delving into this.  Similarly, there will be details coming out in the next few years talking about "why we did this," or "why we won't have that" and so forth.  As it stands now, it simply parrots the subheading under IOA, making it seem redundant.


 * McDoobAU93 17:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally think this article belongs merged, and doesn't need to be an article of it's own. I doubt Harry Potter is going to take over the park and be the majority of it or whatever, so I see no reason why this article needs to exist. Redirect to the park article and merge relevant information: that's the best thing to do here. RobJ1981 18:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This article should not be merged. I don't think people will associate this park with the other "islands," and thus the information would be lost to fans seeking it. With the popularity of Harry Potter I think it's naive not to assume it would dominate the park and surpass the popularity of the other islands which aren't that famous to begin with. This is Harry Potter we're talking about —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.129.155 (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, and isn't a place for speculation. It's stupid to predict the island for Harry Potter will be more popular than the others: when it's not even made yet!. I strongly feel the article should be a redirect, and if needed (when the park is built and out for a while): then it can be an article on it's own. But I somehow doubt that will be needed: as each island is only a few things. An article for only a little information, isn't a notable subject on it's own. RobJ1981 03:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)