Talk:Frozen Ever After

Reception

Why is there no mention the ride's luke warm reception and the 300 minute/five hour queue? That's been in the news and shows the subject's real world impact. 108.57.84.214 (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Because a long wait time is normal for a new attraction and the reception is usually luke warm after replacing a loved attraction (see Talk:The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror/Archive 1#Social media note). Elisfkc (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Elisfkc. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It would be notable enough to mention in the article only if the wait times, reception or mechanical breakdowns reached extreme levels far, far beyond those regularly seen with new attractions at theme parks. The events reported to date are typical for new theme park attractions. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources citing well-known industry experts, we can certainly insert those opinions in a "Reception" section. That's been done in other amusement ride articles. The part about long lines, however, is nothing out of the ordinary and hardly noteworthy for an encyclopedia article. You have to think long-term. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

The only thing is the the wait for other rides has never made news before, as far as I know. Here's some news articles talking about it that I thought might fall under the criteria of reliable sources. Yahoo News, New York Post, Metro UK, E Online, Orlando Sentinel,My News 13 108.57.89.238 (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

That's the problem. Those sources only indicate that the wait time is extreme relative to current rides. They don't indicate that it is extreme compared to other ride openings in recent years. Long wait times for new theme park attractions are normal in the theme park industry, as most theme park fans know. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

For a bit more clarity, look at this section as well as the section immediately following that one. Just because something is covered in what we would consider a reliable source doesn't mean the item is automatically worthy of inclusion in the article. As GoneIn60 pointed out, long lines are common at new amusement park rides on their grand-opening or even soft-opening days, so that's not really notable for inclusion here. --McDoobAU93 19:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hong Kong Disneyland

@TreeBear: The http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/ source is the only one to ever mention the ride as coming to Hong Kong, and only in the images. After looking on Google, no one else mentions it as being a sure thing. The reliability of that website is unknown, so until somewhere else with some reliability reports it as a sure thing, this should not even be a discussion. Even still, until it is officially announced by Disney, it is not known for sure that ride will be going to Hong Kong. As such, it should not be mentioned. Elisfkc (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Elisfkc: [1] [2] If you get into the website of the Hong Kong Disenyland news, you will found "Creative Fact Sheet" at the left down corner of the site which is the same photo as the media gets. I don't know if it is consider as official or not cause it is minimized. TreeBear (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@TreeBear: I am not sure either, but considering the press release never mentions it, I'd say let's wait until we hear about it officially again. Elisfkc (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)