Jump to content

Talk:Universal Studios Florida/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Working Studio?

Something needs to be clarified. In the intro it says that Universal is a working studio while later in History it says it is not. It cannot be both! Arigont (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed this problem by adding the "working studio" content into the History section.--Snowman Guy (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for revising the phrase in the History section. That does make better sense, and emphasizes that Universal had both in mind when constructing the park. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Production Central and studios?

Just wondering whether or not it would be relevant to mention any of the films or tv shows that are presently or have been filmed in this region. Particularly, permanently housed shows like TNA Impact which has it's own studio behind Twister. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.156.228 (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A simple request

I know a lot of people are excited about the changes coming to USF in the next few years, with The Simpsons Ride and Project Rumble. However, we must not lose sight that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan-site or a rumor site. Several potential changes have been edited into the article, and while it is entirely possible that these things may happen, they also may not. If you add a new attraction, or a permanent closure, please provide verifiable proof, such as a press release from Universal Studios, a legal document recorded with the local government, or something else official. Hearing it from a team member or on a website for team members doesn't count.

McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

This article is getting way too long, and contains information that really belongs in the individual attraction articles. I agree that the attractions should all be wiki-linked, but the opening/closing dates and the replacement attractions should all appear in the separate articles, not here. I'm going to be bold and do what I can to straighten this up. I see no reason why this article can't be on the same quality level as those for the Disney parks. Right now, it's a far cry from that.

McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the next question. Which section of the park--Production Central or Hollywood--is considered to be the main entrance? Architecturally, I would think it was Hollywood, since the Production Central attractions are further up the street from there. I guess I should check my guide-map to be sure before I change it again. *d'oh* --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, (according to older USF maps) the entrance to the park is called 'The Front Lot'. It's the area with the backdrops of Universal Studios' production offices and the main gate entrance, it dosen't have any attractions in it.--Snowman Guy (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Some General Facts

There are many false facts floating around this page...very disturbing. First and foremost, it is not called "Blue Man Group LIVE." That is not the name of the attraction. The name of the show is "Blue Man Group Live at the Sharp AQUOS Theatre. The Nickelodeon kiosk, as well, is NOT OCCUPIED at this time by Blue Man Group Gear...the building is unoccupied. Blue Man Group is also NOT part of the Production Central area of the park, as it magically keeps appearing...it is part of Citywalk, not Universal Studios Florida. Wildcardx777 (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree ... the article's quality has plummeted significantly since I started following it. I have fixed the Nickelodeon Studios reference noted above, but there is still so much to be done. The attractions listings are very redundant now, with attraction descriptions that (a) read like promotional literature, (b) that mention the attractions they replaced, which would be fine except for (c) the former attractions list what replaced them (see (b)). I plan on taking a look at this one later to see how it can be re-worded and generally repaired. It desperately needs attention.
McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I fixed the BMG Title and info--Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Whomever posted about a "Project Rumble" coaster, as well as many references to "Disaster Studios Eats," among other rumors, should really be considering their sources for this information--none of it has been confirmed by Universal. Rumors are not for a Wikipedia page, folks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.232.222 (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Project Rumble has been verified. Universal Studios filed a Notice of Commencement with Orange County, Florida stating that they were going to build the "Project Rumble Ride System." I do agree that there is nothing to confirm that it is an outdoor roller coaster (although Maurer Sohne is attached to the project and is listed on the Notice) or that it scheduled to open in 2010. I'll revise it and add citation information. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Back to the Future

Why is this in "Former Attractions"? I rode it today! --Mwongozi 23:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC) I moved it. --Mwongozi 13:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who made that mistake, but I took care of it.Carpe Diem 02:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I know it was open back in January, but I'm pretty sure it's closed down now and there are walls around the building for deconstruction. Has anyone actually ridden the ride lately. Every where I looked it says it's closed and the official site no longer lists it. If I'm wrong and someone has ridden it or has a source that says it is open please revert. Phydend 02:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The attraction closed on March 30, 2007. It is now surrounded by construction walls that are covered in cartoon renderings of The Simpsons and other characters from the show in preparation for the new attraction. Should a picture of this be posted?
McDoobAU93 03:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I think if someone has a free picture that it could go on The Simpsons Ride page for now. I don't think it belongs here though. Phydend 15:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Future attractions

As many people have heard, there is quite a bit of speculation about what all is going into the park in the next couple of years. We know Disaster! is coming, but we don't know everything involved about it. We know a Simpsons ride is coming, but we don't know what it will be named. The latest rumors suggest a new roller coaster (similar to Hollywood Dream at Universal Studios Japan) is coming to the park in 2009, which was edited into the article. Someone also edited the article to suggest that the Woody Woodpecker coaster would be removed in the fall of 2008.

Neither of these changes has been mentioned by any verifiable source, and the best source for such information is Universal Studios itself. Until it announces something, the article should not delve into rumors; it is meant to reflect how the park is *NOW*, not what it might become (unless Universal or some other verifiable source has provided guidance, as in the case of Disaster! or Simpsons).

McDoobAU93 14:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I heard a disturbing rumor that the E.T. Adventure will close next Fall to make way for a Fast and the Furious attraction. I hope this is'nt true.

5VH9 (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted in the article that Jimmy Neutron's Nicktoon Blast will close in January 2008 and that E.T. Adventure will close next Fall. I'm sure this is true.--5VH9 (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, being sure isn't the same as being verifiable. If you have proof of these rumors/changes (press releases from Universal, information from plans submitted to governmental authorities for review, etc.), please add that proof when editing the article. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Now that 'Project Rumble' is coming, we should be on the lookout for more new verifiable news- Wno knows what it will be like!--Snowman Guy (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ride videos

I'm not fully sure about the wikipedia policy (I believe that YouTube videos are discouraged), however I don't think the ride videos belong in an encyclopedia article about the park. They just serve as external links to someone's video page and could be copyright violations (especially the Blue Man Group and show videos). I'm going to look into it and might remove them in a day or two if there's no reply here. Is there anyone sure about this policy though? Phydend (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Ride Videos section is against the Wikipedia policy. Also, Universal Studios made it clear that videotaping any of their theme park attractions and posting them online is prohibited. I highly reccommend that someone should delete this section, Phydend. --5VH9 (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just took them out. If anyone has a real problem with it we can continue the discussion here, but as said above, it seems to be against wikipedia and Universal policy. Phydend (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

But the ride videos are still on the stand alone pages for Universal's attractions, includiing the closed attractions. Do you think these should be deleted as well?--5VH9 (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice that. I'd say they probably should. I'll go along and do it soon if no one else gets to it then. Phydend (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

One other thing That i just thought of, if the videos for the closed attractions are deleted, then no one will have anything else to remember them by. Do you think it's okay to delete the videos for the closed attractions?--5VH9 (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be fine to delete them since wikipedia isn't supposed to be a tribute site. That said, I don't think there would be a problem if tribute sites out there are linked to in the articles (external links sections) that would have videos on them. I'm sure at least Kongfrontation and Back to the Future have sites out there with pictures and ride videos on them and so others might also. That's just my thoughts though. Phydend (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

FastPass

There seems to be a discrepancy on the inclusion of Disney's Fastpass compared to Universal's system. To me it's biased and sounds like a marketing ploy. The article contrasts FastPass's timed returns to Universal's "anytime" approach, implying that Universals' system is better (which is definitely NPOV). A fair comparison would also say that Disney's FastPass is free, while Universal's is quite expensive. If a complete point by point comparison isn't made, then the inclusion of only part of the story presents a biased, one-sided opinion, decidedly unencyclopedia-like. I'm going to delete the unnecessary reference, if someone wants to put it back in then I would suggest a point by point comparison that is unbiased and neutral. 65.120.75.6 (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Tim

A fair comparison would also say that Disney's FastPass is free, while Universal's is quite expensive.
I like this statement; it's being called a fair comparison while offering opinionated statements on the cost of Universal's system. I'm sure there are a lot of guests who would not consider $50/day for Universal Express to be "quite expensive".
The whole reason for adding the reference is that, in the park community, Fastpass is rapidly becoming a genericized trademark for any system, including Universal Express, Six Flags' Flash Pass/Q-Bot, etc., that enables privileged access. The statement, as presented, makes no judgements and offers no opinions as to the quality of either service; it merely states that Universal's system (which not many people know about) is different from Fastpass (which almost everyone knows about). Nothing more, nothing less.
Let's break down the "offending statement":
Unlike Disney's FastPass virtual queuing service, Universal Express Plus users do not have to reserve a time, and may enter the Express Plus line whenever they wish. However, passholders may use the Express Plus line only once per enabled attraction.
I submit to the editors that what is presented here is factual, verifiable and free of opinion. Disney's system is a form of virtual queuing that has its guests reserve a time to return, while Universal's system does allow its guests to enter the special line at will, but only once (except as noted later in the paragraph, and as supported by references), and thus the two systems are not alike. It does not state that either system is better than the other, or that either system is deficient because of what it does, or anything else of that nature. It merely states what it is and what it isn't, leaving it to the reader to judge for themselves. I further submit that I would like to find someone who can point out exactly how the "offending statement" can be construed as opinionated ... and the old obscenity standard (i.e., "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it") won't cut it. If someone can, I will gladly stand corrected, and will appreciate the insight and the guidance.
Personally, I hate both systems, but the parks love them for their own reasons, so it looks like we don't have much of a choice but to learn to live with them. Needless to say, we can't say that in an encyclopedic article; that would be offering an opinion. I am open-minded, and do agree that more could be said about Universal Express Plus, notably that it actually was Universal's FastPass program until (rumor has it) Disney sued them over it and they changed it to its current form.
McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is that there is no need to bring Disney's Fastpass into the discussion. Why would you? Why not Six Flag's system? Or any of the others that you mention? If you want to make a comparison of how Universal's works vs. other systems out there then do so, don't limit it to one competitor. I'm not saying it's "offensive" (not sure why you jumped to that conclusion), but the way you have it worded it does sound like an opinion. Using phrases like "Unlike Disney's FastPass..." does make it comparative, and can be interpreted as inferring that one is better than the other. Since you wrote it you might not see it that way, but it reads like that. Minimally, I would remove the Disney reference and genericize it, since as you pointed out you are trying to compare the system to all of the others (in which case say something like "Other 'front of the line' systems offered in other theme parks give the rider a specific time to return, Universal Express Plus takes a different approach by giving riders the ability to return at any time."). It does seem like in your article and your entry here that you have an axe to grind with Disney, and even though I'm sure you're trying to be neutral, which I respect, it is coming through in the artice. All I'm suggesting is a bit more neutrality, then everything will be golden.65.120.75.6 (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Tim

For what it's worth, I have no axe to grind with Disney ... far from it. Proud Annual Passholder to Walt Disney World (and to Universal and to Anheuser-Busch Parks) and I use FastPass when available during my visits (even though I think they would be better off without it). Further, I was not offended by any criticism you had about my edits.
To prove it, while I do not see any neutrality issues from a grammatical standpoint, I agree that the passage could be re-written as you suggest. In fact, take a look at the article and see what you think about my revision (made after this post).
This particular subject, in regards to this article, is not the hill I want to die on, so to speak. There are more major issues with it than that (a list of "former shops"?!?), and I believe we both want what's best for the article, which ultimately is what counts. Thank you for a good discussion on this subject.
McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, nice job! Thanks for a good discussion too! 65.120.75.6 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Tim

Wow, you guys had a long discussion.--5VH9 (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do most people like going to Disney parks instead?

How come lots of the Orlando tourists enjoy going to Disney's parks instead of Universal's parks? Disney is just dumb, little cutsey fairy tales, but Universal puts you right in the middle of your favorite movies and TV shows. Anyone know why?--Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This may be a discussion page, but the above subject really isn't important to an encyclopedic entry on Universal Studios Florida, or how to improve said article. The subject matter is highly opinion-based. As to why, whole books could be written on the subject, on both sides of the issue. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The Universal vs. Disney scheme is not really a good thing to disscus on Wikipedia. Try disscussing that on themeparkinsider.com if your're intrested, USN1F.--Snowman Guy (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Because Disney puts you right in the middle of your favorite movies while Universal is just dumb, little cutesy exercises in licensing. 70.91.35.27 (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)T

Jaws

The Jaws Ride did NOT open on June 7, 1990. That ride wasn't added to the park for several years. I have no idea of the actual date but that is definitely incorrect. *edit* Actually I stand corrected. It apparently did open but they closed it down and replaced it with the current version. Maybe some sort of change should be made to the article? DX927 (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The attraction closed for renovation in 1993, When Universal sued the company that originally built the ride, And hired another company to rebuild sections of it. I'm not sure if the renovation should be mentioned in the article, Since information like that should go on the Jaws (ride) page. But is there anyone else who thinks the renovation should be mentioned in this article?--Snowman Guy (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not correct. The renovation for the ride began in 1993 but the ride had already been closed for over 2 and a half years. It was closed only a few months after the park opened in 1990. They had tried to plan renovations to have it reopened for 1992 but that fell through. The ride eventually reopened in late 93. That is more important for the actual ride article though. I found all of this info from this site www.amityisland.net DX927 (talk) 08:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Amityisland.net is blacklisted from Wikipedia. You'll have to find another site to get info like that.--Snowman Guy (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Then again, The information you have is still correct, But this renovation info should still gon the Jaws (ride) page, It already seems to be missing some of this info.--Snowman Guy (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For those of you wondering about Jaws' renovation, i heard it's just going to be some new paint to the entrance, and there going to drain out the pool and clean it like they did in November 2000. It's closing January 28 and re-opens February 2. This should probably go in the Jaws (ride) article. Just letting all of you know.--Michael 4 Movies (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Such house-keeping renovations really aren't noteworthy. If the renovation was to make significant changes (adding or deleting scenes, etc.), then it would qualify. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any new of Jaws closing down permanetly in the near future?--Snowman Guy (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No.--Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Project Rumble

If you've been following Screamscape, you'll know that this is the next coaster project for Universal Studios Florida, often rumored to be a new version of Japan's Hollywood Dream. It looks like we have our first verifiable proof, as Screamscape got a hold of an Orange County Notice of Commencement stating that "Mauer Rides Gmbh" would begin construction of the "Project Rumble Ride System." That stuff is public record, and thus is verifiable, so something is coming.

What we don't know yet is exactly what Rumble is, exactly where it's going (and what may or may not be removed to make way for it) and exactly when it's going to be ready. Screamscape believes (probably correctly) that the "Mauer" actually is Maurer Sohne. So, the question becomes how to add this to the article, while keeping things from getting out of hand with rumors and such. Opinions?

McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, If the news and press releases are verifiable, Then i think it deserves it's on page on Wikipedia, As well as info on the USF page. And oh, Do you have any idea in which area of the park they're going to put it in?
--Snowman Guy (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Sources have said it may go on the southern end of the park, near Jimmy Neutron and Twister. The rumors recently have suggested that either, neither or both attractions may be removed to make way for it. Again, Universal is mum on the subject, and the Notice only says something is being built; not what, not where, and not when it will be finished.
I initially thought of putting a "Future attractions" section in the USF article, simply because the attraction's name and location haven't been finalized yet. Opinions?
McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I think a future a future attractions section for USF's page would be good. Only we'd need to have one for each island, Since that's the way the previous attractions are set up, And since Disaster! and Simpsons are aren't open yet, They should probably go in the section as well. I think i'll get to work on this soon.
--Snowman Guy (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I deciphered the land parcels listed on the Notice. It mentions "portions of Lots 6 and 12," and Orange County's GIS website shows that Lot 12 is USF, while Lot 6 is the soundstages between the two parks (extending behind the Aquos Theatre). This at least points to it being in the Production Central section of the park.
McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...I thought those Sound Stages were used for TV and Film production? Anyhow, Do you have any idea yet as to wether it will be an indoor or an outdoor coaster?

--Snowman Guy (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Murder She Wrote , Hercules and Xena, Wild West Show and Merged Islands

I did'nt make my first visit to the park until 1995, But i'm positive that Murder She Wrote and Hercules & Xena were NOT in the Hollywood area. They were in Production Central, there sound stage was across the street from Shrek 4-D on the left. And The Wild West Show was NOT in Expo Center, it was in Amity (After all, it dosen't even have a sci-fi theme). I'm busy now, but i think these errors have to be corrected. if there' not, i'll return later to correct it myself. Also, why are San Francisco and Amity merged together? they need to be seperate. that should be corrected also.--Snowman Guy (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's Universal Studios itself that refers to the section as "San Francisco/Amity," per their guide maps. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
MSW was in Production: http://www.thepsychomovies.com/psychohouse/usfmap1.jpg 121.208.180.8 (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
And according to Universal's latest map, FFL is in San Francisco/Amity; [1].--Snowman Guy (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Right. Which is why WWWWSS could not have been in Expo, as you pointed out, because FFL replaced it. Your updates to the article are nice, Snowman Guy. One suggestion? Lose the "Replaced by: ???" ones. If there isn't a known replacement, having nothing there would look better. In most cases of the shows, there might not have been a replacement. 121.208.180.8 (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, i'll get to work on it. Thanks.--Snowman Guy (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
That's much cleaner, thanks. 121.208.180.8 (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons Ride

The grand opening date has been verified. At the grand opening of Disaster!: A Major Motion Picture Ride...Starring You! Bill Davis said that Simpsons was opening around March 15. Maybe this should be mentioned in the article, which currently says "Spring 2008".--Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Overkill

I've been following the article for some time now, and I really thing the amount of information presented here is getting out of hand. Former shops that are essentially re-themed to match the attractions nearest them aren't really noteworthy, and neither is a themed drink machine stand in World Expo. The table of contents is almost one screen deep on its own. We really need to either (a) justify every entry here for its noteworthiness or (b) start culling information. Encyclopedia articles should be concise, to the point and not delve into minutiae. No, this isn't my article, but I would like to hear what others think belong here. Thanks. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: I like the List of former Universal Studios Florida attractions article, so I decided to be bold and move the former dining and shopping services to a new subhead under that article. I cut and paste from one to the other, so nothing should be lost during the move. Any questions? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Horror Make-Up Show

Does anyone mind creating an article for the Horror Make-Up Show?--Snowman Guy (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Move Request

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

The result of the proposal was No consensus for move. Parsecboy (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Name was changed several years ago to Universal Orlando Resort since they now focus more on the aspect of the theme park then they do on television and motion picture productions. Rosie, Queen of Corona (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose ... Universal Orlando Resort represents the entire complex, of which Universal Studios Florida is a distinct part. This would not be an appropriate merge/move. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as well. I agree with McDoob.--Snowman Guy (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Universal Studios Florida/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm afraid this is a clearcut fail. There are far too many lists or bullet points. Please turn into full prose. Also the article has far too few references to meet the GA criteria. There is too much work to do to put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Harry Potter

why no information on the new Harry Potter themed section? does anyone know when it opens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.228.188 (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wizarding World of Harry Potter is opening in Islands of Adventure, USF's neighbor park. Any information on it will be in that article.--Snowman Guy (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Lucy: A Tribute: No longer open at Universal Studios Florida?

This Wikipedia page for the Universal Resort Florida has the 'Lucy: A Tribute' exhibit on the page for current attractions at the park, and not in the former attractions, yet other websites I have checked say it closed in 2008 to make way for a more general, Universal Studios museum. Some websites don't mention a closure, but they don't seem to have been updated in a while, and the general consensus is that it closed back in 2008. I would have thought the Wikipedia page would have been updated on this since 2008, so is it a mistake and the Wiki page needs to be updated? Or are these other websites (not official websites) false? BritishHobo (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It was the Universal Studios Hollywood version of the attraction that had been closed, not the Orlando version.--Snowman Guy (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
This probably doesn't follow the guidelines for the talk page, but I love you right now. Thank you very much. BritishHobo (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Character Appearances

During the rewrite of this article I have noticed the overlap of several character appearances amongst different themed zones. Should they be included in the one generic section to prevent repetition? Themeparkgc  Talk  07:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur, they should be in a generic section. However, From what I remember the last time I visited USF, I only remembered seeing each character in only one area. I believe a mistake was made by an IP editor on the article.--Snowman Guy (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Corrections

The rewrite for the article is going fine, however, there are two corrections I wish to point out.

1. Richter's Burger Co. is not tied in with the Disaster! ride, but rather the former Earthquake rendition. I believe a sentence should be added similar to Doc Brown's Chicken in the USH article which reads "In homage to the former Earthquake: The Big One attraction, Richter's Burger Company has remained open".

 Done Themeparkgc  Talk 

2. Fear Factor Live, as well as the Fear Factor Gear stall, are located in the Amity area, rather then World Expo, according to Universal's park maps.

 Done Themeparkgc  Talk 

Other then that, I concur with the rewrite. I would also like to see the current Simpsons Ride image replaced with one photographed closer to the building. I will be going to the parks in the Fall and hope to photograph the entrance while visiting.--Snowman Guy (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Any of these ok? [2] or [3]? I can upload them to Commons if you think either are ok. So I have finished the rewrite of the main themed area sections now. I'm probably going to have a break from this for a few days before completing the references. Feel free to assist if you wish. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
While the second image looks better, I would say to use the first image as it provides a closer view of the building; I also believe it should be used to replace the current image of the Florida building on The Simpsons Ride article.  Done Themeparkgc  Talk 
Two further corrections I would like to point out:
1. Fear factor Live and it's gift stall are located in the Amity portion of San Francisco/Amity.
 Done Themeparkgc  Talk 
2. Theatre Magic sells Magic Show style merchandise rather then Horror film merchandise.
 Done Themeparkgc  Talk 
Thanks.--Snowman Guy (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
All done Themeparkgc  Talk  02:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Attendace Update for 2010

Can someone add the reference in the article for the updated theme park attendance for 2010?--Snowman Guy (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Fear Factor / San Francisco?

The Fear Factor show is grouped in with the San Francisco section of the article. Since there is now an entire land (Diagon alley) separating San Francisco from Fear Factor, and since Universal's own map features Fear Factor as part of World Expo (https://www.universalorlando.com/Images/PrintableMapsUSF_Orlando_tcm13-38306.pdf), I recommend that the description of Fear Factor be moved to the "World Expo" section. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

universil

it is in orlando. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.89.136.107 (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. However, while the park is in Orlando, you completely missed the point of what I was saying. The park is divided into various themed sections, including New York, Hollywood, San Francisco, etc... My comment is regarding which themed section of the park the Fear Factor show belongs in. Thanks. Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Opening date?

Where does the February 3, 1989 date come from? Even Universal says the park opened on June 7, 1990. Are we talking about when production began at the on-site studios? I can't find a mention of it in the body of the article, just in the lede and the infobox, both of which are supposed to be based on the article content. --McDoobAU93 18:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

World Expo redirects here

Shouldn't World Expo redirect to World's fair instead of Universal Studios Florida? --Anywhere road (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Universal Studios Florida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Universal Studios Florida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

NPOV and other issues

This article has a slight tendency to promote and advertise which we should try and get rid of, plus a number of other issues:

  • "Universal Studios Florida inspires its guests to "ride the movies""
Not in an encyclopedia.
  • "Over the years, Universal Studios Florida has not limited itself to attractions based on its own vast film library."
Superlatives and awe-inspiring adjectives like "vast" would at least need some citation.
  • "It was also the first time that Universal Studios had constructed an amusement park "from the ground up.""
Where is the citation for "the first time" and for the quote?
  • "Sometime after June 2005 the optical illusion of the Space Shuttle was removed from this part of the park. As you headed towards World Expo from San Francisco/Amity it was one of the many designated photo spots throughout the park."
Sorry, but that whole paragraph is really unencyclopedic stuff. The date sounds like someone wrote this who visited the park in June 2005, and back then it was still there. That's what we call Original Research.
And "As you headed..."?? Put that kind of description in Wikivoyage if you like, but here, it is just plain unencyclopedic style.
  • A lot more OR in the part "Character appearances": "Seen in Hollywood", "Seen in New York etc. - by whom? By the person who wrote that paragraph?
  • I also doubt that every single coffee shop in the park is of encyclopedic importance. Do those really all have to be included here?
  • Redundance: The fact that "Jaws" was a former attraction is described at least five times throughout the article. Do we really need that much repetition? I personally would consider the whole paragraph "Previous Attractions" to be redundant and superfluous. Almost everything in there has been said before in the "History" part, and for all those who that is not enough for, there is a whole article about former attractions.

--93.212.228.146 (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Universal Studios Florida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The file Universal Studios Orlando globe.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

This page should be protected

Reguarding that stupid and annoying user who vandalized the Universal Studios Florida page, this page should be protected. So can you please do that? Wiki-Ikiw (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Universal_Studios_Florida/Archive_1&oldid=968725370"