Talk:Warner Bros. World Abu Dhabi

9 May 2017 editing

If you don't want an edit war, @BruzerFox:, don't start one, and don't blame me. There was no change from a neutral position like you claim, but you introducing or removing correct information.

• You decided that the original partnership was producing films instead of financing films.
• The table includes similar information that is collected in the |[Template:Infobox_attraction|infobox for attractions]], so it isn't unreasonable to include here.
• The article indicated that Miral is funded by the government per its source: "Miral, a limited liability company backed by the Abu Dhabi government, also owns other key assets developed by Aldar including Yas Waterworld, the 227-berth Yas Marina and the Cipriani restaurant." That is general what the term "backed" means in finance.
• The park indicated many rides were tested ("almost complete"), you decided that few were done. How do you have that information that indicates other wise because it isn't in the source article?
• How does indicating "Warner Bros. Consumer Products" unit was a part of an announce make that not neutral when WBCP was involved by source (Variety):

“Warner Bros. World Abu Dhabi will be a state-of-the-art themed experience that authentically brings some of the studio’s most iconic characters and stories to life under one roof for the first time in the Middle East,” said Pam Lifford, president of Warner Bros. Consumer Products. “We have been closely collaborating with our partners at Miral to faithfully construct immersive worlds that resonate with precise details and are thrilled to share these unique experiences with fans next year.”

and at Deadline:

Warner Bros Consumer Products president Pam Lifford said: “Warner Bros World Abu Dhabi will be a state-of-the-art themed experience that authentically brings some of the studio’s most iconic characters and stories to life under one roof for the first time in the Middle East.”

• How does indicating more correctly a past version of Hollywood would be the theme of Warner Bros Plaza like the source says: "...as well as Warner Bros Plaza, which is reminiscent of old Hollywood."
• While, you don't have words for Wiki-Ikiw who added unsourced info ("Gremlins, Harry Potter, Lethal Weapons, Wizard of Oz, ") with clear knowledge that they were not sourced ("I hope those included as well, after all Harry Potter and the others are definitely WB properties."). Spshu (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Much of your phrasing is poorly-constructed. That, and the table, were really my only major concerns

For starters, the table. You simply don't see tables like that in other theme park articles. That information belongs within the infobox, if there's a valid field for it. Another good alternative I kindly suggest is finding a way to integrate that information into the body of the article. Using a table like you did just doesn't look good.

"Film financing and production" is a longer phrase than necessary, since as far as films are concerned, "production" often implies financing is involved anyway.

I don't understand why you want it to be phrased "begun with many of the 29 rides". "Some" does not mean "few". By definition, "some" only means "not all".

Also, my opposition to "Hollywood of the past" had more to do with your choice of words. "Hollywood of the past" is an odd choice of words and shows slight favor towards the subject matter by describing it the way a marketing agency would. Using the phrasing "old Hollywood" or at least the "golden age of Hollywood" would be better, and for that matter, closer to the way the source actually describes it.

That's it for my justification. For the rest of what you said, you made a good case and I'll leave those parts alone. Also, don't use a confrontational tone with me. I mean no offense. I'm just trying to help you out here.BruzerFox 04:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I would just like to say one thing about Wiki-Ikiw's edits. I wasn't checking the article often enough at the time to see what the user's contribution was. Don't insinuate that I knew what they did and chose to ignore it. I would've reverted it if I checked. However, editing on Wikipedia isn't my entire life, so I can't always tend to every article I watch 100%. It's not fair to call me out on something that isn't even remotely my fault. BruzerFox 14:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You corrected phrasing with a single comma, so how is alphabetizing the object of the activities of the partnership poorly phrasing?

• You can move the table information into the article itself. Perhaps I did so as I original did not figure out how to integrate it into the article's body. Second, there may be no infobox fields because given how old some of the theme parks out there might not be much info available to fill that field.
• I did not use "Film financing and production" but ".. financing films, ..". While production of films indicate financing, financing doesn't necessarily mean production. There is also "production facilities" ie. production studio list which you outright remove along with retail and other activities.
• But "many" is more than "some" thus a greater completion rate indicate by the source.
• I don't see "Hollywood of the past" as a marketing style usage compared to "golden age of Hollywood", which glorifies Hollywood thus more PR speak. I did not use "old Hollywood" as to avoid the verbiage of the source.

Re: Wiki-Ikiw's edits, the edit summary reads as if you blame me for correcting him or what he added since that was the most dubious information on the page per your edit summary: "Much of your edit contained dubious information, an unnecessary table, and various grammatical errors. They were already changed for a reason." Spshu (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not blaming anybody for Wiki-Ikiw's edits. You're blaming me for not reverting them. Again, it's not my fault, but since you're determined to find any excuse to make me seem like the bad guy, I think it's best we leave that line of conversation alone. It's not even relevant to this discussion in the first place. The "many" versus "some" argument; It's becoming obvious to me that neither of those words matter. It's an unimportant distinction in this case. The use of similar verbiage as the source doesn't matter, so long as you're not wholly repeating entire sentences from the source. Things like the comma, the description of Hollywood, the "many" versus "some", are all very small details and it seems unreasonable that you're getting upset over those details. As for the table, we can easily work on that to make it better integrated with the content of the article. Again, I don't want conflict, here. It's nonsense that you're making this sound like a confrontation, when all I'm trying to do is show you better ways to contribute. I'm willing to be reasonable, but you need to be more open-minded when people alter or revert your contributions. BruzerFox 01:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, but only you think that I trying to make you the bad guy. You are doing that yourself. I though you blamed me for Wiki-Ikiw based on edit summaries: "Much of your edit contained dubious information". If you want that line of conversation alone as you are making your issue with the article that I could find as me being "upset over those details." I just gave the reason why I did not use the "old Hollywood" verbiage not that it is completely unusable. The comma is the only grammatical corrections that I could find when you are claiming "various grammatical errors" and you produced none. If you don't want conflict then don't continually misrepresent of what I said or make up incorrect text of what I put in the article. You need to learn some reading comprehension. You only are showing that you. You have not been reasonable as all your complains in the edit summaries are nearly non-existent. My working with you is to get you to realize that none of the big errors you demanded discussion about don't exist or small as you now realize based on above discussion. You made it confrontation. If you don't want conflict then step back and see if you are making incorrect edits. Spending my time explaining to you that you are in error is not a "better way to contribute." that is wasting my time. How is that better? You have not been reasonable since you did not look at if there was a problem with your edits and assumed I was at fault. You are not open-minded as you expect every one else to be open minded. I did look to see if I was at error (during my reversal of your edits), which you have assumed that I did not. I could not find any as I explained before and only found the comma for this discussion. Also, you could not produce any error that I made. Spshu (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I said "much of your edit contained dubious information" in reference to the content of your own edits, not those of the other user's. I apologize for the confusion there. What "made up" text are you referring to?

Also, I think I have been quite reasonable. I am currently stepping back from the article to let this discussion take its course. I extended the courtesy to help you better integrate your information with the article and all you've done is ignore my gesture of good faith in favor of continuing to complain to me about a minor misunderstanding. It seems to me that the original thing that upset you was the fact that I removed your content, and I made it seem as though some other edits were your fault. Once again, I'm sorry for that misunderstanding, but frankly, you need to get over it. It's not a big deal. I could've handled this better in the beginning, but everything since the start of this talk page discussion has just been your own effort to deflect my advice, and deny the concept that anything you added could've been improved. An important thing about Wikipedia is being able to recognize where there's room for improvement, and that's a big part of why Wikipedia is a collaborative project.

I never assumed that you didn't proofread your own edits. No offense meant here, but I wasn't sure you knew what to look for. This is another reason why I thought I could be helpful to you, but now you've turned to directly insulting me by saying I have poor reading comprehension, so I don't think you're willing to be civil with me. I'm going to ask for a WP:Third Opinion so that we can resolve this situation.

By the way, I'm incredibly confused with this: "You are not open-minded as you expect every one else to be open minded." Do you think having an open mind is a bad thing? BruzerFox 09:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

RE: made up text — what I wrote in the article: "film production" your made up text of what I wrote: "Film financing and production"

You are the one continuing to claim that I am complaining about a minor misunderstanding. I AM NOT. You needed to stop deciding what I am upset about. That is what I am upset about. I have been over it, except for you continuing to misunderstands that I am not. You still do not get the misunderstanding since you continue to repeat the misunderstanding as if it is correct int telling me to "... but frankly, you need to get over it." If you keep on claiming the false hood as if it is true, you are the one that needs to get over it and stop making me the problem. You have not dealt with it well on the talk page, I have not deflect your advice except for you attempts to make that I am making mountains out of mole hills. You have not shown how any thing con be improved. There is room for improvement but you continual give no improvement or decide I am the problem instead of continue the collaboration.

You are insulting yourself by not comprehending what I am telling you. If you comprehended what I have been saying, you would not be bring up the same issue that I have told you is false repeatedly. It is you have decided that I am not civil to you. I have repeatedly reject what you claim then you turn around and claim it again. Why do you think that would not infuriate some one? NO the open minded statement is that you are presuming where the discussion is going (closed minded) thus don't bother to comprehend what I have said then continue ranting incorrectly about what you think I think. Talk about the issue not about me. Drop it now!

Since, you basically agree with my edits. So, I will restore my version. Then yo cing intergrate the table and we are are done. Spshu (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy we've come to an agreement. I'll drop it. BruzerFox 01:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Visiting this park- should I add anything?

Hello! This is my first (and only) time editing an article. I have been to this park before and will visit it tomorrow. Thus, I can add in any information that is not online but in the actual location. Information such as catering, how Ramadan affects normal operation, and especially ride types (made from inference).

Personally, I believe that adding the known ride types is beneficial to this page as it can help people (such as myself) who avoid certain types with foresight.

However, I do not know the conventions of editing an article nor feel comfortable doing it without asking. Should I add information to this page and what information should I add? Thank you so much for your patience Kayterquarter (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)