Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Walt Disney World Railroad

Walt Disney World Railroad[edit]

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath. To do this, see the instructions at {{TFAR nom/doc}}.

The result was: not scheduled by Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Walt Disney World Railroad (WDWRR) is a 3-foot (914 mm) narrow-gauge heritage railroad and attraction located within the Magic Kingdom theme park of Walt Disney World in Bay Lake, Florida, in the United States. Its route is 1.5 miles (2.4 km) in length and encircles the vast majority of the park, with train stations in three different park areas. The rail line, constructed by WED Enterprises, operates with four historic steam locomotives originally built by Baldwin Locomotive Works. The WDWRR's development was led by Roger E. Broggie, who also oversaw the construction of the Disneyland Railroad. The attraction's locomotives were acquired from the Ferrocarriles Unidos de Yucatán, a narrow-gauge railroad system in Mexico. After being shipped to the United States, they were altered to resemble locomotives built in the 1880s and restored to operating condition. Each locomotive was also given a set of passenger cars, which were built entirely from scratch. The Walt Disney World Railroad opened to the public on October 1, 1971, the same day that the Magic Kingdom first opened. The WDWRR has since become one of the world's most popular steam-powered railroads, serving about 3.7 million passengers each year. (Full article...)

Most recent similar article(s): Disneyland Railroad, 7 August 2017
Main editors: Main editors: Jackdude101 (Talk)
Promoted: July 31, 2017
Reasons for nomination: This will be my second FA to appear at TFA. I suggest including this on the main page on 1 October, which is the opening day for the railroad, the park, and Walt Disney World in general.
Support as nominator. Jackdude101 (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the date makes sense to me and the article itself is strong. I know there may be some concerns that this will be running only a few months after a really closely related topic, but I think it should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: date makes sense Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Cas. Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is very, very similar to the August 7 TFA Disneyland Railroad. That would be within two months. -DePiep (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DePiep:@Jackdude101: I understand your concern; maybe it is best to hold off putting this on the main page until next year? Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I would prefer to have it on the main page this year, if possible. I wouldn't be terribly concerned if it wasn't on the October 1 date, but it is objectively the most appropriate day for it to be on the main page. Would it be better if it was put on the main page on October 7 (exactly two months after the DRR's main page appearance), for instance? Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 17:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that would be fine, but it is best to get other people's feedback (I did not have take issue with the original requested date). I was just trying to get some forward momentum to this request. Aoba47 (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47:. I have no opinion on postpone/continue, as I am not familiar enough with this point in TFA. I noted it because I was confused myself when I looked at this TFA-preparations pages (didn't realise at first they were different titles; BTW thit happened when the first one was the TFA. -DePiep (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to try and propose some sort of solution for this. While I will keep my support vote standing, I do not see any particular reason why this cannot wait until next year as there are plenty of featured articles that were included on the main page some time after they passed through the FAC process. I do understand the concerns about this one as the topics are very close to another. Aoba47 (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. epicgenius (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Two articles about one product of one company in two months is quite unacceptable. The articles share identical text in places: "travel along its single track in a clockwise direction on its circular", " historic steam locomotives originally built by Baldwin Locomotive Works" etc. Not sure that we want Wikipedia to become the extension of the Disney PR department. Orthorhombic, 15:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Orthorhombic: For the record, I am not affiliated with Disney in any way. What would be a more agreeable day for this to be on the main page, in your opinion? Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 16:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackdude101: Thank you for the clarification on your non-affiliation with Disney. I assumed your good faith, and will I appreciate that most if not all editors on Disney articles are not employees or beneficiaries of Disney, we still shouldn't run two very similiar articles in this close succession. (Doing so does Disney's PR department's work for them by default.) Honestly, and this is just a personal opinion, but putting a year between the two articles would be best. Orthorhombic, 19:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Orthorhombic: I'm perfectly fine with moving the date, but waiting a whole year is a bit much. I made a comment a few days ago further up on this page where I proposed that it be moved to 7 October, to put it outside the two-month window. Would that be tolerable for you? Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 19:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackdude101: I appreciate your openness, but for the aforementioned reasons I can't support this nomination. (Given the votes of the other editors, it looks like you will have enough support overall.) Orthorhombic, 20:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Personally I don't have an issue with this article appearing a mere six days within a two-month time frame. Freikorp (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator comment. Jackdude101, although there is substantial support for this, there is also some opposition, and I am concerned that this is a very specialized topic to run twice in such a short time. Can you explain why it's important that it should run this year, rather than next? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: There's no particular reason why it needs to run this year, other than the fact that it got promoted to featured status at the end of last July, and this is simply the earliest 1 October date during which it could run. I would prefer to run it this year, and as I stated before, I am open to pushing back the date. In particular, I was thinking of 7 October to move it out of the two-month window. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 21:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've turned down a TFA request in the past when there was no specific reason to choose that year, but changed my mind on request; there was no opposition to that TFA request. I don't like to upset nominators, but in this case we have a couple of quite reasonable opposes. It's a very specialized topic, and there are a lot of deserving articles that could run. Pinging Jim and Dan to get their take. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Ortho that a year between the appearances of the two articles would be best. If people are worried we'll forget about it, we won't; we can add it to WP:TFAP for next year. - Dank (push to talk) 22:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Mike Christie, while it's understandable that an editor wants their FA to be at TFA as soon as possible, there is no compelling reason why it should run this year, and a good argument why it shouldn't. I bumped a TFAR back a year when I scheduled May, and i think we have to trust Mike's impartial judgement on this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]