This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Amusement Parks:Universal Parks & ResortsLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofAmusement parks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byUniversal Destinations & Experiences task force (assessed asHigh-importance).

Because the current opening date has only been told to investors, and is a very unofficial one, it should not be put in the infobox signed,MrWonkaLets talk!04:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Though Universal has only officially announced the Super Nintendo World land, aerial footage and trademarks and patents filed by universal have confirmed the theming of other lands and the names and details of rides and restaurants for a while now. Is it time to add a more detailed description of the upcoming areas of the park based on these sources or at least the Super Nintendo world since that one has been announced by Universal?RyanAl6 (talk)14:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a little disingenious to name EU as Universal Orlando's "fourth theme park", counting Volcano Bay as a "theme park" when other articles like WDW don't count water parks.Basil the Bat Lord (talk)02:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Late reply, but absolutely correct. It is the fourth park overall, but only the third theme park, as clarified bythisUSA Today source under the section "What are the four Universal parks?". I'll update the article accordingly. --GoneIn60 (talk)16:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally get where you both are coming from however Volcano Bay is classified as the Third Themed Park at Universal.

According to official media Epic Universe is the Fourth Themed Park at Universal Orlando Resort. I'd be happy to research why Disney does it differently, but this encyclopedia entry about Universal's property and should be accurate

Source:https://corporate.universaldestinationsandexperiences.com/introducing-universal-epic-universe-the-companys-most-ambitious-theme-park-to-date/AbeBroFez (talk)21:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AbeBroFez, please see Wikipedia's policy regardingPrimary, secondary and tertiary sources. Press releases and other forms of marketing are self-descriptive, which are a type of primary source. We can use reliable primary sources, of course, but with caution. Also readWP:SELFSOURCE to learn about restrictions regarding self-published primary sources that could be making claims that are "self-serving".

In the end, we generally lean more onindependent sources, such as theUSA Today source, and definitely more on secondary sources, which tend to be one-step removed from primary sources. The source you provided would not trump or override theUSA Today source and should not be inserted. I am open to finding better sources, however. Books, magazines, and any other scholarly source would be the best choice here. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk)12:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s insane. Clearly, the company refers to "the four parks of Universal Orlando Resort."SuperDuper509 (talk)19:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperDuper509:: I think you might be confused about the conversation here. There is no disagreement there are four parks. There are 3 theme parks and 1 water park for a total of 4 parks. I suggest undoing your recent edits. AndJackriper23, you need to start explaining why you keep reverting tothis version of the page. Check theUSA Today source cited in the article (it is also linked above). --GoneIn60 (talk)21:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This video has excellent information about the road and transportation changes coming to the area. Can we please use its content and as a citation? Thanks!https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8dAEHUP/AbeBroFez (talk)21:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AbeBroFez, please readWP:RSSELF and the section right below it,WP:USERG. User-generated content from sites like YouTube, X (Twitter), TikTok, etc., are not acceptable as sources on Wikipedia. There are some exceptions, which you can read about, but those exceptions are pretty rare. If the content they are posting is important enough for inclusion, it is likely to be published elsewhere or to be covered by another reliable source. You may want to consider using theTeahouse in the future for general questions you may have about editing on Wikipedia instead of article talk pages. You're likely to get faster responses, as some article talk pages aren't being watched by that many editors. --GoneIn60 (talk)12:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned in the last edit summary that the blog had stated examples of the monsters in the Dark Universe section that will appear in that ride as well as the meet and greet characters. I advise that the meet and greet characters be re-added when the park opens and the identities of the monsters in the ride in question be mentioned when someone starts an article about it. Any objections? --Rtkat3 (talk)15:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So others stumbling across this discussion can follow along, these comments are related tothis removal.

Rtkat3 – Wikipedia isnot a travel guide, and therefore, we should avoid adding every element about the park into the article. Only the most significant aspects should be included, and trivial details should be kept to a minimum. Eateries, meet/greet characters, etc., are not usually encyclopedic unless they receive extensive coverage in reliable sources. Brief mentions in enthusiast sources or press releases do not count.

Also, Dark Universe is just one aspect being discussed in the article, so attempting to expand its description like you did with trivial details doesn't seem like an improvement to me. We want to keep this as a brief overview. Now, if a dedicated Dark Universe article ever gets created, then it would make sense to include more detail there (as long as its tied to strong, reputable sources of course). --GoneIn60 (talk)21:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So far, onlySuper Nintendo World andThe Wizarding World of Harry Potter are the only ones that have sub-pages forUniversal Epic Universe. If you want to help in creating the Dark Universe article by the time the park is opened and that Frankenstein experiment ride, go right ahead. If I recall correctly, some of the other parks in theUniversal Orlando Resorts have sub-pages with their descriptions. Also if I recall correctly, some of the other parks have listed their meet and greet characters.Rtkat3 (talk)23:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who wants to include the extra detail here? What I'm saying is that some of what you've tried to add belongs in a more focused article. Perhaps take your own advice here and create the article where it would fit the best, since you're the one pushing for it. While you're at it, you're going to need better sourcing to show significance. I also wouldn't waste your time pointing to what other articles have gotten away with. Those arguments lead nowhere productive. --GoneIn60 (talk)13:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Nintendo and Potter areas, those sub-pages exist only because versions of them have already been built at other Universal theme parks, whereas Dark Universe is a new area for Epic Universe.Harryhenry1 (talk)14:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even in light of the early access and the park being officially opened on its release date, there is a draft article forMonsters Unchained: The Frankenstein Experiment that is currently being constructed. I just wanted to let you people know that in case you want to help out with the draft article that@(a)nnihilation97: started. --Rtkat3 (talk)15:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried editing this article TWO times ([1],[2]) about the temporary confidentiality & site security procedures in place for Team Member previews, however, two users named @CANthony0125 and @GoneIn60 both reverted my edits, and I, therefore, disagree with these reversions. This information should belong on Wikipedia, because these incidents were very serious and the public has the right to know about them.Bradenbear424 (talk)23:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However serious the situation is isn't the point here, they removed them since the only sources are park enthusiast bloggers, and not other sources that could verify its importance.Harryhenry1 (talk)23:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. AsHarryhenry1 said, you first need better sources, not only to corroborate the accuracy of the information, but also theimportance of it. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor is its purpose to report the news. Instead, we lag behind and simply document what reputable sources have already reported and analyzed for us. Sometimes, we exclude insignificant details, and we tread carefully when it comes torumor and speculation. If you want to include this information, start with gathering more reputable sources and then we can revisit. --GoneIn60 (talk)13:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. This type of information gathered for Wikipedia needs reputable, independent news sources to corrobotate it all. Not just first-hand accounts fron personal blogs.CANthony0125 (talk)14:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confidentiality before the opening doesn't seem like a "serious incident" to me. I would expect this.57.135.233.22 (talk)19:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Astronomica splash pad.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk)11:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m fine with keeping the History section as a single section. My main goal was to adjust the flow so it didn’t lead with Nintendo, which felt out of place chronologically. I initially used subsections to help reorganize, but I agree that creating them for just one paragraph was overkill. Thanks for consolidating it back. I’ll focus future changes on smaller flow improvements. ~~~~Dragonspark (talk)13:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Subsections aren't a bad thing if used sparingly, and this is just my personal rule of thumb, but I tend to prefer at least 2 lengthy paragraphs per subsection. One of the reasons I reverted back was due to several only containing a single paragraph. The subsection titles begin to look cluttered when they appear frequently.

As for chronological order, yes, the entire History section should generally be written chronologically. However, it might occasionally make sense to mention something out of order when it reduces redundancy and improves flow. For example, at first mention of the 2023 expected opening, it made sense to immediately follow that up with the rescheduled 2025 opening, instead of randomly inserting it further down. Like a plot summary section for books and films, there will be exceptions. --GoneIn60 (talk)21:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the section should be mostly chronological, but exceptions can improve readability. For example, moving the 2024 Celestial Park unveiling up to the paragraph discussing speculative IP/franchise mentions before official confirmation keeps related info together without breaking the flow. ~~~~Dragonspark (talk)22:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We could move the "Celestial Park" reveal up to the 2nd paragraph if you prefer, but I think it also works where it's at. It was mentioned alongside the overall map unveiling, which didn't occur until much later (January 2024). --GoneIn60 (talk)03:09, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure the Celestial Park sentence fits where it's at currently. This paragraph is about March 2023 branding changes, while Celestial Park is a 2024 layout reveal—why do you feel this placement works better than either grouping it with the earlier land themes discussion or as its own paragraph? ~~Dragonspark (talk)04:08, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don'tfeel strongly either way, but a lot of this section contains paragraphs with varying concepts (this is currently the case for the 3rd, 4th, and 5th paragraphs). Either we abandon the chronological ordering altogether and combine matching concepts into the same paragraph (regardless of date), or we live with the current format that favors chronological. I tend to lean chronological with the mish-mash of themes per paragraph. Again, if you'd like to move that statement up to the 2nd paragraph, feel free, but the issue you've shined a light on will still exist in other paragraphs.

Normally as an article expands with more information to help fill gaps, we can split off subtopics and themes into their own dedicated paragraph. This article is still in its early stages of development for sure. --GoneIn60 (talk)05:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The History section includes some peripheral, non-essential context that doesn’t directly relate to the park’s development, such as the 2023 corporate rebranding, Governor DeSantis’s quote, CEO Woodbury calling Super Nintendo World the “worst-kept secret,” and the Chronos promotional tour. Trimming these would keep the focus on the park itself. (WP:OOS,WP:HTRIV)Dragonspark (talk)22:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's commonplace to include marketing details within the History section (seeIron Gwazi, which was recently promoted to afeatured article). If the article gets lengthy and the subject's marketing coverage is extensive enough, we would sometimes throw these details into their own Marketing section or subsection.

Similarly, we typically include details about rebranding if it impacts the ride or park, which it clearly does here. The marketed name and logo changed as a result, so it is very much a part of its history. Note that the section isn't called "Park development"; the termhistory has a much broader scope. --GoneIn60 (talk)02:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering what others think about keeping information about Universal's land acquisition for the development at the end of the Location and infrastructure section. I'd think, based on the precedent set by other developments' History sections, that the info about early land acquisitions should be the first part of the History section, and Location and infrastructure can include more detailed info about the property in its current state (size of the property, which parts of the property are developed, which parts could be developed in the future).RyanAl6 (talk)22:39, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote at least part of the current Land acquisition section, and in hindsight it reads more like a timeline than narrative prose. I don’t object to moving it into the History section, as well as streamlining the content and removing what is non-essential or insignificant.Dragonspark (talk)22:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed it was due to whatDragonspark just mentioned. There was a dedicated section already, so it seemed somewhat redundant. Also the content lacked sourcing (at least what existed in the History section). The "Land acquisition" section could be moved up, and if we decide to merge into History, then that might actually justify the creation of a "Construction" subsection. There are multiple ways to approach this for sure. --GoneIn60 (talk)03:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• C-Class amusement park articles
• Low-importance amusement park articles
• C-Class Universal Parks & Resorts articles
• High-importance Universal Parks & Resorts articles
• Universal Parks & Resorts task force articles
• Amusement park articles