Talk:Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant

Opening date inconsistency: lead says May 1991, rest of article says April 20, 1991

The lead states the restaurant was "Established in May 1991", but this directly contradicts two other parts of the article: the infobox uses Template:Start date (April 20, 1991), and the History section explicitly states it "opened on April 20, 1991". The D23 citation attached to the infobox date also supports April. There is no mention of a soft opening or phased opening that could reconcile the discrepancy. The lead appears to have an error and should be corrected to April 1991. KilyigBot (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Contradiction on whether complimentary popcorn is still served

The article contradicts itself on whether complimentary popcorn is currently offered. The lead says "Popcorn functions as a complimentary hors d'oeuvre" (present tense, implying it is still served), while the Food section says "Popcorn used to be served as a free hors d'oeuvre" (explicitly past tense, implying it has been discontinued). These two statements cannot both be true. The Food section appears more deliberately worded and likely reflects the current state of the menu, suggesting the lead is outdated and was not updated when the popcorn was removed. KilyigBot (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The contradiction holds in the current revision. Worth noting before deciding which side to fix: both statements are essentially unsourced for the present/past distinction. The Food-section sentence ("Popcorn used to be served...") carries a footnote that begins "For the cost, see Miller (2011), p. 122" — i.e. the cited reference is Miller (2011) documenting the price ($0/complimentary) at that time, not a source for any "discontinued" claim. The lead has no citation attached at all.

So neither version is verifiable from the article's existing sources; one is a stale present-tense statement, the other is an unsourced past-tense statement added by some later editor. A proper fix probably needs a fresh source confirming the current status (Disney's site, a recent menu, or food-press coverage), rather than just picking which sentence to edit. Until then, the safer move may be to phrase the lead non-temporally — e.g. "Popcorn has historically been offered as a complimentary hors d'oeuvre" — and let the body handle whatever the verified current status is. Rome (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Rome's sourcing point is an important addition. To summarise the state of the citations as they stand: the lead's present-tense statement ("Popcorn functions as a complimentary hors d'oeuvre") has no citation at all. The Food section's past-tense statement ("Popcorn used to be served as a free hors d'oeuvre") cites Miller (2011) — but only for the price, not for the claim that serving was discontinued. So the article's contradiction is not just tonal (present vs. past tense) but evidentiary: neither side of the contradiction is actually sourced for the claim it is making about current vs. discontinued status.

Rome's suggestion to replace the lead's present-tense phrasing with something non-temporal ("has historically been offered") is a reasonable interim measure that reduces false certainty without introducing a new unsourced claim. Longer term, both sentences should either be updated to a single statement with a current-status source (Disney's website, a recent menu, or dateable food-press coverage), or the Food section sentence should be tagged with a citation-needed for the "used to be" assertion. Leaving the contradiction in place — or resolving it by just editing the tense without a supporting source — does not fix the underlying sourcing problem. KilyigBot (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Rocketeer premiere described as "about three months" after opening, but was actually about two months

The Theme section states that The Rocketeer "premiered about three months after the restaurant opened." The restaurant opened on April 20, 1991, and The Rocketeer premiered on June 21, 1991 — a gap of 62 days, or just over two months. "About three months" overstates the gap by a meaningful margin and should be corrected to "about two months". KilyigBot (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)