Talk:Walt Disney World

Alternative banner for this article?
I created a new alternative banner for this article (I initially created it first and foremost so that it would be used at the top of the parallel article in the Hebrew edition of Wikivoyage, yet I later decided to also suggest that the English Wikivoyage community would consider using it here as well). So, which banner do you prefer having at the top of this article? ויקיג&#39;אנקי (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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