Talk:Kings Island/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bias

This article is subtly and not-so-subtly biased, especially towards the end of the written section. It really needs to be neutralized. The article is just a little bit too gung-ho about what a great deal the park is, which leads me to believe we might not be getting the full story on its history. For example, we might expect to see some mentions of incidents, or perhaps other reasons for ride closures (for example, I don't know if this drove the closure, but I had heard of accidents on rides similar to the King Cobra.) Candybars 05:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Kings Island has had a number of issues with its roller coasters, including some that delayed the opening of Son of Beast. In fact, there was an incident recently, though I don't have the time to pull up references. You could probably find something about it on Google. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Stand-up roller coaster

This page states that the King Cobra was the first stand-up roller coaster, but the Stand-up roller coaster page says that it is the EXT in Kansas City. LabSpecimen 13:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The way I read it, the EXT was the first conversion from a sit-down coaster, while the KC was the first to be built as a stand-up. Lambertman 14:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, neither page was right. The first two stand-up coasters were in Japan, and were converted from sit-down coasters. EXT (Extremeroller) was the first stand-up coaster in the Western Hemisphere. King Cobra was indeed the first to be built as a stand-up. Both this article and the stand-up roller coaster article now reflect this fact. --Skylights76 19:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Fixed opening sentence jibberish. Deleted reference to "Sunlite Pool", not because I know it didn't exist, but because I know nothing about it, and couldn't learn anything from this article. Feel free to throw it back in.

A huge chunk of text had been lost in a recent edit. It should make more sense now. Lambertman 12:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Location

I wanted to clarify Kings Island's location. The park is, in fact, located in the city of Mason, not Kings Mills. There was some question to that. Mason annexed the park from Deerfield Township in 1997. Kings Mills is an unincorporated area of Deerfield Township just north of the park. I was going to revert but someone got to it before me. Dblevins2 23:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I found and inserted a citation from The Cincinnati Enquirer stating that Mason annexed the park. Thanks for letting me know I should look for a reference, it was a big help! LastChanceToBe 20:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent anonymous edits by 71.

I see no reason not to revert these, as it is illogical to try to include every single ride in the park, especially the wholly non-notable ones. He also saw fit to delete LBGC from the roller coaster list. I'd like to see someone else get involved in the reverting so it doesn't look like I'm claiming ownership of the article. Lambertman 10:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Halloween themes

There is discussion already of previous winter-themed events which took park in November-December. However, no mention is made about the Halloween themed events taking place September-October (now called "Halloween Haunt" and previously "Fear Fest").

I have added the basic info to the article that these events exist, but more detail regarding dates, name changes, and festivities/things to do will need to be added by others.Steve69uc 14:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Six Flags Kings Island"

At the time of Paramount's purchase of Kings Island (and Kings Dominion in Viginia), the park was officially named Six Flags Kings Island. I did not add it to the article or the infobox because I do not have a citation with a non-trivial mention,[1] but I trust that someone would find one and insert the information accordingly. I do not know when Six Flags owned Kings Island and Kings Dominion, except that the company name was there in the early 1990s (as was the defunct Six Flags Atlantis in Florida). B.Wind (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are mistaken. Lambertman (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Zones

I seporated the rides into their proper zones because of the park section link in the infobox on ride pages links to it. We can also now properly discribe each zone in its proper section and list all the rides. Also I combined the defunct rides and arranged them by their closed date. Also updated the park template at the bottom so it can include all the rides that have pages made for them. --NickVet419 (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed a Line

I removed this line: It was announced on October 23rd 2009 that Scooby Doo&The Haunted Castle will be transformed In To Charlie Brown & The Haunted House for 2010. 99.18.38.34 (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Modifying list of attractions

I am in the process of improving the layout of the lists which currently are hard on the eyes. I've separated defunct areas in the park from the rides and placed them in their own table. I've begun sorting lists alphabetically by the name column making it unnecessary to click the sort buttons at the top unless there is a need to sort by different criteria. Other minor edits include adding spacing between sections throughout the entire article so it doesn't seem so clumped together. Thoughts? Issues? Let me know...--GoneIn60 (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok for seporating defunct list, not really needed but I can see the usefullness of it... need to seporate the lists fully though and add headers. From maintaining this page for a while now, it was much easier to manage the attractions by sorting them by date, only because new attractions to the list could easily be added to the top of the lists and not have to be filed alphabeticly each time. But as long as the page remaines consistant and uptodate there shouldn't be a problem. I do think the defunct list should remain sorted by closed date because of the nature of that list. Still deciding on extra spaces. the section headers seem to seporate everything fine. --Nickvet419 (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved stages and theaters to bottom of attraction list. Made List of attractions the main header for all attraction lists.--Nickvet419 (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Also adding rating system. --Nickvet419 (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved defunct list

Moved list to List of defunct Kings Island attractions --Nickvet419 (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

New ownership

This section should be merged with the rest of the article.--Nickvet419 (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Halloween Haunt for 2010

Please remove the "Toy Factory." Only update the mazes when they're announced. We may not even get the "Toy Factory." Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.151.148 (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone added "Toy Factory" a while ago, likely because it was part of the 2009 lineup. It needs to stay until we know for sure what the lineup is going to be in 2010. "Maybe" isn't a good enough reason to remove it. Also, you should be adding comments to the edit summary when editing the main article. You've been leaving it blank, so others will have no idea why you are making changes. You may want to take a look at Wikipedia:How to edit a page to see what I'm referring to. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Also, can someone re-do the "Boo Blasters on Boo Hill" edit on Cedar Fair's wiki since I heard little kids don't like it and it might leave after this year. "Toy Factory" wasn't on the 2009 line up at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.151.148 (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You'll probably want to mention it on Cedar Fair's discussion page instead of Kings Island's. It sounds like a rumor, however, which probably will have a tough time being in the Wiki article. Try to provide a web URL source when adding content to a page, especially in this situation. I also recommend registering an account on Wikipedia. By the way, I updated the Halloween Haunt section just now. The attractions list now matches the website's from 2009. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know when Kings Island will announce their new maze? I'm going up today to get my job at Haunt so I can update it since at the park they'll have the maze listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.151.148 (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Units

{{Convert}} should be used in the article. The primary unit is always the local unit (in this case: feet, miles etc), with the secondary unit (metres, kilometres) being the opposite. Regardless of whether the main audience is from the US, the conversion template should still be used on English Wikipedia which is viewed by those who use both units. I have reverted the page back to Lightmouse's revision. Themeparkgc  Talk  05:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand the good intentions implied by "standardizing" the article with metric conversions. I can see that it would be helpful to others. However, my concern is that amusement park articles like this one will usually contain a large number of in-line references to the imperial measurement system. Converting every imperial unit in the article saturates it to the point of becoming a distraction (What about mph to km/h, gallons to liters, etc, that haven't been done yet? What about other forms of measurement like the Burmese system? Where does it end?). Users should have a right to read articles like this without all the clutter. Once you allow metric conversions through the door, how can you turn down other types of conversions? You have to draw a line somewhere. I propose that we leave the conversions out of the body of the article, and instead, use them only in the ride charts listed at the end. Many of the imperial measurements found throughout the body are repeated down in the ride charts. I have no problem with listing conversions there, and if needed, I will make sure that all imperial measurements listed throughout the article are repeated once more in the charts so that each has a corresponding conversion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd also go ahead and post a small example of what I'm talking about. In the "Notable Additions" section, you'll see the line that starts "Coming in 2011: A new 301-foot (92 m)-tall swing ride known as WindSeeker...", but seems much cleaner without the conversion: "Coming in 2011: A new 301-foot-tall swing ride known as WindSeeker..." due to the hyphen being moved out of place. I could cite more examples. (GoneIn60 (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC))

Nickvet419 fixed it, and after taking another look at the article, I've decided to drop this concern about conversions for now. I may revisit this at some point later after I've had time to rearrange the ride section (which may need to have its own dedicated page). (GoneIn60 (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC))

Could I ask why "acre" is exposed at the opening without conversion? It should probably be to km². Also, above, I see an example I don't like: "A new 301-foot (92 m)-tall swing ride known as WindSeeker". Why not avoid the clunky expression by reversing the order? "A new swing ride 301 feet (92 m) tall, known as WindSeeker ...". Tony (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried to make all of the units use the convert template. Themeparkgc  Talk  07:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the clunky phrasing (which was essentially taken from Kings Island's web site). I changed it, hopefully for the better. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Lists can be made collapsible, so they don't need to be moved to a separate page like I just did with the food and shops lists. Defunct rides could possibly be moved back using this technique.--Nickvet419 (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Accidents

Not trying to bash the park, on the whole their safety record is pretty good, but they have in fact had some accidents, including two deaths in one day. I'd have to try and find a ref, I want to say it was the mid-to -late 90's. One person fell out of the Flight Commander ride and another supposedly intoxicated person fell into a decorative pond and was killed by eletrocution due to faulty wiring on an underwater pump. They stopped selling beer there after that. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Lots of pages seem to know about this, but so far none of them is a WP:RS. I remember seeing a story about it on the local news, but so far none of the outlets I have checked even have stories from hat far back online, and now that I live several thousand miles away from there I can't go look in the library archives. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

New section added: "Newest Additions"

Added a new section for things comming to the park. I included windseeker and the new 2011 teaser to this section. This will help document new rides and attractions and assist in the constructin of new wiki pages. --Nickvet419 (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Food, shops, games.

Added new colapsable lists to the page. They still need sorted by venue name and discriptions added.--Nickvet419 (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Linus' Beetle Bugs (Kings Island) merger

Not sure the above page has enough notability per WP:GNG on its own to merit its own page. I wondered if it could merged here. Would adding details about this specific ride be too much undue weight? Thoughts? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There are probably other articles that could be merged in also such as those listed in the Planet Snoopy section of the article. If only verifiable content was merged in from the articles, I wouldn't think it would really give undue weight to any of those rides. If you were to merge the whole article in though, that would be another story. You may wish to speak with Italian Job 2005 (talk · contribs) who is the author of a lot of these articles. In short, I would support the merger you proposed above. Themeparkgc  Talk  10:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I would also support the proposed merger. I don't believe that a stand-alone article needs to exist for every ride, especially those without "significant coverage" as described per WP:GNG. GoneIn60 (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I spoke with Italian Job 2005 (talk · contribs), and he has OK'd the merger. I'm going to begin merging these articles in, but only adding verified content to the brief descriptions already listed at Kings Island#Planet Snoopy section. Thanks for your feedback, folks. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It might be necessary for Woodstock Express to retain its own page for two reasons. First, there seems to be enough information about the ride to populate more than a single paragraph that if imported would clutter the Kings Island Planet Snoopy ride chart. I can cite additional sources to what existed before and possibly add more. Second, it is a roller coaster which in itself should qualify for having a stand-alone article per WP:WikiProject Roller Coasters with an infobox. Anyone agree/disagree? GoneIn60 (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with it, but the sources should go beyond the park website (because the park website is not independent) and roller coaster database (because it already gets cited in the infobox). There isn't a clause in the WP:WikiProject Roller Coasters that says that all roller coasters are inherently notable as far as I can see. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That is true. The project doesn't specifically call for a dedicated article for each and every roller coaster, though articles on coasters with at least two reliable sources, enough material, and meet other WP:PG criteria are encouraged. I would be able to add a reference from kicentral.com as well as one from coaster-net.com and possibly some from local news articles. My main concern was that this coaster in particular seems to have enough historical information and images to warrant its own page. Perhaps not, however, if that's the consensus. GoneIn60 (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think those sources are sufficiently reliable, but keep in mind that it's the historical information in reliable sources, not the presence of images, that confers notability. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The Crypt gone

When Kings Island launched their new website today, the Crypt was not on the page. Is it safe to remove the crypt from the article even though no official announcement has been made? This is not the same as SOB though because it is still standing, but the crypt might be awaiting relocation/demolishing. Astros4477 (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting to note, however, that the Crypt is still shown on the park map, whereas SOB hasn't been on the map or the website in two years. Also, at the Great Ohio Coaster Club 2011 Holiday Party, the park's PR director said that they were reviewing the Crypt and at that time (December 10) hadn't made a decision in regard to its continued operation. The absence of the webpage for it may just mean that still haven't made a decision. I would suggest leaving it in the table unless/until a reliable source confirms something regarding it. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I do have to point out that Canada's Wonderland got the new website and Leviathan is not on their park map so they might not of updated the maps yet. I agree with leaving it, if anybody finds a source, feel free to post it. I didn't even know there was official discussion about removing it, I just thought they were rumors. Good to know. Astros4477 (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It currently does not have an official page on the Kings Island web site, but it is still on the map. There has not been an official release yet about The Crypt so it should remain active on wiki. When we find out more, we can update the status.--Nickvet419 (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

New ride lists structure

example

Ride	Year opened	Manufacturer (Model)	Description	Rating
Boo Blasters on Boo Hill	1972	Sally, D.H. Morgan (Ghost Blasters)	A dark ride experience for families which involves shooting laser guns at ghosts and ghouls. Formerly known as: Enchanted Voyage (1972–1982), Smurf's Enchanted Voyage (1984–1991), Phantom Theater (1992–2002), and Scooby-Doo and the Haunted Castle (2003–2009)	1

Most all of the rides have details in the description of manufacturer, model, etc. What do you think of adding additional columns for those details? see Cedar_Point#Current_roller_coasters for example.

Here are the 3 main ones that are in most descriptions, could also be combined Make/Model/Type in one column.

• Manufacturer
• Model
• Type

Here is a list of additional details that could have their own column.

• Cost
• Designer
• ride time
• capacity
• height restrictions
• speed
• length

What do you think?Nickvet419 (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If your talking about adding a chart with the roller coasters all in one, I think it is fine the way it is. As stated above, Kings Island is one of the best amusement park articles out there. All the information is sorted into their park sections in an orderly way.

As for the columns, I think just manufacturer/model/ and type are fine. If you look at other amusement park articles, none of them include cost, ride time, capacity etc in a chart on the page. Astros4477 (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ya, don't want to combine them. just the additional columns.--Nickvet419 (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it was worth looking at, but the more we add to the charts, the more cluttered it begins to look in my opinion. I'm OK with adding a column for manufacturer, however. GoneIn60 (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

How about one for "previous names"?--Nickvet419 (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that would cause disorganization as not every ride has been renamed. Astros4477 (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I really dont think that adding the manufacturer/model did any good to the article. IMO, it made the article messy and disorganized. It is also messy and inconsistant with the names and links. You can find out that information by clicking on the rides article. --Astros4477 (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

not all rides have articles. --Nickvet419 (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Just trying to separate ride specific details from the actual ride descriptions. The descriptions are getting very long and can be somewhat confusing with all the fine details of manufacture/model/type/descriptions/other info mixed in. --Nickvet419 (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is another formatting idea I would like to use to separate the former names instead of a separate column "Formerly known as; list".--Nickvet419 (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this looks very clean easy to read and understand. It highlights the basic information sepratly instead of a jumbled mess. The articles themselves can go into more details as history/themes/accidents/etc.--Nickvet419 (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ya I think i have to agree now. What do you think about removing the model though and just having the manufacturer? I think that would make the manufacturer box look more clean and unified as not every ride has a specific model --Astros4477 (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Most all rides have model specific data, Like a mega splash vs super plash vs Shoot-the-chutes. all splashing boat flumes, but completely different rides. Some have there own pages like the family suspended coaster. Maybe just having the make and model on seporate lines would look better. --Nickvet419 (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the separate column for manufacturer/model. I agree with Nickvet on putting make and model on separate lines; that would look cleaner. Putting the former names on a separate line from the basic description is also a good idea for the same reason. jcgoble3 (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

ok.. Manufacturer br (Model) see example above--Nickvet419 (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm doing the seperate lines right now and adding links for models --Astros4477 (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Make sure the link are only for the model and not ride type. The ride type can be linked in the discriptions.--Nickvet419 (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Timeline

I am working on a full timeline of kings island located here Kings Island Timeline. I added a see also link in the Notable additions section.--Nickvet419 (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Boo blasters on boo hill

Is boo lasters on boo hill located in planet snoopy or international street? This article lists it as International street but it is themed as planet snoopy and the rides actually article lists it as planet snoopy. --Astros4477 (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Although it is commonly believed to be part of Planet Snoopy, it is officially on International Street. See its page on the official website. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kings Island/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 16:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll begin this review. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   article contains way too many list incorporation to pass as GA

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   there is a dead links

   contains {{cn}} and {{refimprove}}

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   (see above)

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• I don't think there is time to fix this article in the seven days it will be on hold. However, if its problems are remedied, I wlll continue the review. Meanwhile, the article is on hold for seven days. Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I think the GA nomination might have been too soon. Quite a few editors have been cleaning up this article and adding a lot of content over the past year, but there is still a lot to do in my opinion. I feel that the request should be cancelled for now, and that a consensus should be sought from frequent editors as a courtesy before nominating the article again in the future. My 2¢ GoneIn60 (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not possible to "cancel" a nomination. I can "fail" it and it can be renominated when ready. There's no stigma from my point of view in a fail. I'd like to hear from the nominator first though, else he might just renominate the article for GAN without understanding the reasons why it is not ready. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Officially failed principally on the basis of the numerous embedded lists. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_criteria#Multiple_lists_fail.3F Multiple lists fail? The article Kings Island has recently been reviewed as fail status because of multiple lists. Why is it that an article should fail because of this? see below for response by reviewer.--Nickvet419 (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I seen that the review failed because of multiple lists? There are multiple lists because either; they fall under different categories shops, theaters, rides. or they are ride lists that are located is separate sections of the park. how do you suggest that the list should be re-organized to meet a pass? --Nickvet419 (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a problem. The Wikipedia Good article criteria specifically eliminate articles with embedded lists. I believe the thinking is that such articles should try for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates because the difference between a good list and a featured list would not be that great. You could ask at the talk page of Wikipedia:Good article criteria and might get a different rationale. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(Comment without prejudice: Neither the GA criteria nor WP:EMBED require that articles should not contain lists. What is needed is thought, balance, and compromise.) Geometry guy 23:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, did I make the wrong decision on Kings Island? It had a fair amount of prose, but many many lists (13, I think) plus several timelines and other listy things. Should the editor be encouraged to renominate? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Not in the article's current form. The issue is not just the many formatted tables, but the bullet point attitude (e.g. on notable people. slogans) that pervades the article. Such formatting sometimes adds value to an article, making it easier to digest, but overuse, as in this case, is a clear reason to fail. Geometry guy 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I was the one that nominated Kings Island for GA review. I feel everything in the article is right for an amusement park article. It contains all the information to know the park and nothing more. The only think I would get rid of is the notable people. --Astros4477 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You have made a valuable contribution. I hope you have also learned a little about what the GA criteria mean. Geometry guy 01:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

FUN Perks

Hello everyone! I just wanted to let you guys know that I am currently developing a article for the new FUN Perks program that Kings Island has created. Once the article is finished someone can add some info about in the KI article and link it to FUN Perks article.--Dom497 (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see where this is worth having its own article. A simple mention in this article would be enough. jcgoble3 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

To quote my talk page, "I personally don't think it should deserve its own article. Google News brings up no reliable sources. All normal Google results are either just from Kings Island themselves or on forum/blog sites." Themeparkgc  Talk  01:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Questionable content and style

I'd like to revisit nominating this article for GA consideration, but first we really need to repair or filter out questionable items.

1. Dog Street Cemetery - Under the Significant Facts -> Other section, is it really necessary to include information about this? Even if was featured on Ghost Hunters, I'm not sure it really belongs in the Kings Island main article. It has very little to do with the park itself and is only relevant by location.

2. Lists - This was an obvious point of contention in the last GA nomination. We may want to dedicate a page to list the rides, and only mention the notable ones in the main article. Thoughts?

3. Kings Island Resort - Doesn't this belong in the list of former attractions?

4. Medical center and fire station - This is turning the article into a directory of services. Only notable items should be here.

5. Slogans - I think it's time to finally get rid of anything in this section that's not cited (and if the list is too short, then delete the entire section altogether)

6. Anything else I missed! GoneIn60 (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a couple things, I feel the notable people should be removed. It's not really significant and it just mentions famous people that worked here. I feel the slogan section should stay so I'm going to try to find references for them.

I'm not sure how I feel on the lists. Amusement park articles are always going to have a great number of lists because they contain a lot of rides. I feel that the main reason people visit amusement park articles is to find the rides at the park. If you create a seperate page for rides, then one if the main reasons for the page is gone. So in my opinion, the complete list of rides should stay as the rides are the most important stuff in the article.--Astros4477 (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Cities have notable people listed all the time, so it may be tough to find a consensus to remove it. If you really want to do all that work on slogan references, more power to you. It is a nice little piece of the park's history, but the fact that they changed it so often makes it difficult and, in a way, irrelevant. I agree about the ride lists, but I'm just pointing that out since it was mentioned in the GA review above. Do we really need to list Food/Beverage, Shops, and Games? You have to admit that it's a bit on the excessive side! GoneIn60 (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is one of the things I missed. That doesn't need to be included at all. I'd wait to make any edits until Nickvet419 comments since he is one of the primary editors of this page. I do feel like this page is very close to GAN again once we remove the stuff listed above.--Astros4477 (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Not sure why you have this urge for WGA when the focus should be more directed towards the Wikipedia:Five pillars . The reason most all park pages do not pass WGA is mostly in fault of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Amusement_Parks/Standards. So the question of many lists should be brought up to the wikiproject to maybe change their standards of Article structure which includes Themed areas with Rides, Shops, and Food. --Nickvet419 (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Good articles are reviewed by peers who adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. While the five pillars describe the site's mission and principles, the policies and guidelines set standards that go into more detail. I think the "urge" to reach GA status on many of these articles is always a good goal. Who knows, maybe we'll get a featured article out of one someday! The only way we're going to get there, however, is to listen to the feedback and continue to improve the articles. Unfortunately, long lists or lists about items that are trivial (food, shops, merchandise, etc.) aren't likely to be accepted regardless of what the Wiki project page says. They make the article seem cluttered, and more specifically, they may not abide by the guideline that discourages directory-style entries. The guideline gives an example that you wouldn't list every patent a business has filed for in the business's article. Sure, someone somewhere may find that useful information, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. I do agree that perhaps the advice on the project's page should be changed eventually, but I'm not sure that it necessarily has to come first. —GoneIn60 (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

After looking at the history of the Wikiproject Amusement Parks page, it doesn't appear to have included the part about food and shops until after 2010 when the page was revamped. Who controls the content on that page? Could anyone have added it, or does it get changed under a consensus? —GoneIn60 (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought I'd jump in here... I created the article structure loosely based upon the brief structure which was already part of the project and the only featured article at the time, Idlewild and Soak Zone. I also took into consideration the state of a lot of the amusement park articles on Wikipedia at the time. Nowhere in the guidelines does it say to list items in list or tabular format. If you look at WhiteWater World (a current Good Article), all of its content is in prose format and it is even able to mention the food, beverage and merchandise offerings. In the case of this article, maybe listing all of these in not a good idea due to the vast number of options available. If you do feel the guidelines need to be changed, feel free to discuss it on the talk page. Themeparkgc  Talk  03:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of the Significant facts section could most likely be de-listed and made into article form like the first half of the article and possibly be renamed Historical Facts since most information on those lists are from the past. The other section that I made are facts about the park that I think readers would find interesting. Kings Island Resort could easily be moved into the history of the park as they were once listed on the park map and brochures. The other content could be merged into an article form and section of other current facts about the park. That would clear up most of those lists into a readable article. --Nickvet419 (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There has already been made separate, Former attraction, and a timeline, Which is lightly duplicated on the main page. Things like events and slogans can be merged into the timeline already created. People is a nice fact to have listed, but possible moved to a subpage instead of a blatant delete. How do other pages manage notable people? --Nickvet419 (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that I listed the article for a copy-edit.--Astros4477 (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm finishing up a GAN for Cedar Point right now and I've learned a few things on what an amusement park article needs. I would like to visit getting this to GAC again. I still think the food locations and and games and shops should be removed. It just creates too many lists. Cedar Point is almost a good article and Canada's Wonderland is very close. So share any thoughts on what you think needs to be done for this article.--Astros4477 (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the lists. I think it's time to filter out the trivial ones as you already did with Slogans. Kings Island was the first article I started editing years ago, and I've learned quite a bit since then as well. I'm sure as I start combing through it again, I'll have a few "Why did I do that" moments! It definitely still needs some work at this point. Nice job, by the way, on getting Cedar Point to GA status (officially listed this morning)! — GoneIn60 (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you move slogans info into the timeline? Should do that. Events can also be moved to the timeline. Just move Venues to a sub page. That should clear up most of the lists. --Nickvet419 (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The events list is a short one and sourced. I don't see a problem with leaving it in the main article. Of course, it can be in the timeline as well. The Slogans section didn't have enough sourced material to stay, and moving it to a list doesn't solve that. WP:Source list claims that lists are subject to the same Wikipedia content policies that articles are. As for the Venues list, the problem goes back to the discussion we had above about Food, Shops, and directory-style lists in general. Points #4 and #8 at WP:NOTDIR explain the issue. They need reliable sources to meet verifiability. KIExtreme, KICentral, and others listed at the end of the timeline may be challenged on these terms; some do not consider these unpublished sources to be reliable for good reason. In-line citations should also be used throughout. — GoneIn60 (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Should I remove the slogans from the timeline then?--Astros4477 (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Up to you. The timeline will need a lot of work down the road. Perhaps we should leave that to another discussion on its talk page. — GoneIn60 (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I added a timeline of the logos. It should technicaly pass GAN because its a template but don't delete it if you think its a gallery.--Astros4477 (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

According to this source, Kings Island opened for a preview night on April 29, 1972 and officially opened on May 27, 1972. However, according to this source, it officially opened on April 29.--Astros4477 (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a bit of truth to both. April 29th was the "official" opening to the public, yes, but it was still considered a "preview" weekend. This source confirms that and goes on to say that May 27 is when daily operation begins. This source and this source both claim May 27th was the "grand opening". — GoneIn60 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

So should we put in the article that April 29 was the preview and May 27 was the grand opening?--Astros4477 (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It was in there, but it looks like your revision at 14:38 on July 11, 2012 removed it. Yes, I would add it back using some of these new references. — GoneIn60 (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

KECO

There was some discussion regarding American Financial Corporation's purchase of KECO in 1987. Although a secondary source states that KECO was purchased for $150 million, it appears there's more to the story:

1. KECO and Kings Entertainment Co. appear to be separate entities. The article mentions KECO purchasing land from Kings Entertainment Co. and talks about KECO's formation in 1987.

2. Only Kings Island appears to have been part of the sale to AFC

3. An SEC filing for AFC's 1993 Fiscal Year discusses the October 1992 sale to Paramount Communications only mentioning Kings Island and not the other parks. Interestingly, it also estimates the value at $210 million, clearly nowhere near the $400 million Paramount reportedly paid. So apparently there was an additional purchase outside of the AFC-Paramount transaction that must have occurred (cough, cough...KECO anyone?).

4. A summary of an article here states that Kings Island was owned by AFC while the other parks were owned by KECO.

5. I think this might be the key to the problem with media reports. Taft Broadcasting retained one-third interest in Kings Entertainment after it assumed ownership of the parks in 1984. So when AFC bought up Taft in 1987, a deal was likely worked out to also include Kings Island, since Taft owned so many shares. This restructuring of Kings Entertainment where a piece (Kings Island) went to AFC is what's causing problems. The sources that say AFC bought KECO are referring to that "piece" of Kings Entertainment - before the rest of Kings Entertainment was restructured and became KECO.

That's my theory anyway. The Dayton Daily News article isn't flat out wrong, but leaves out important details and refers to Kings Entertainment as KECO - something that now appears to be incorrect. One could even speculate that the staff writer used Wikipedia as their source, which looked like this at the time. From what I've heard, that wouldn't really come as a shock to some journalists. —GoneIn60 (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I was not aware of the complex situation that you just described when I reverted an edit a couple weeks ago on the basis that the Dayton paper was preferable to a primary source. It does seem that the DDN article isn't quite right on a few points. I think it would be best to use the sources above instead, and a brief explanation of the confusion probably wouldn't be out of line either. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

copyedit

Upon request, I edited this. Comments:

• The info on The Crypt doesn't appear in the current ride list. Is it gone?
  • Thanks for the copy edit! Yes The Crypt has been removed.--Astros4477 (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'd suggest changing the number rating entries to colors.
  • This has been discussed before in other articles so we would probly need to get a consensus.--Astros4477 (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Halloween Haunt attractions

There is an editing dispute about using the former names and changing the opening dates of several attractions. Another issue is that this section hasn't been properly sourced to begin with. I'm beginning to think that trying to keep track of former names and opening dates might be counterproductive and unecessary. It might be best to stick with the most recent name, type, and location and get rid of everything else. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Opening dates for rides are generally clear-cut, except in the rare case where there's dispute over whether a modification has created a new ride (e.g. Texas Giant), and such cases are rare and easy to deal with. A renamed ride is also usually clear-cut in that re-theming a ride (which often accompanies a rename) doesn't usually create a new ride, since the ride is defined by physical characteristics like it's layout that don't change with the theme. Theme park haunts, on the other hand, are largely defined by their theme, and so when a theme is changed but the haunt stays in the same building, reusing props from the old one, it's much harder to decide whether it's a new haunt with a new opening date. Even a haunt in the same building, with the same props, theme, and name as the previous year could arguably be a new haunt, since they're likely to change somewhat from one year to the next to keep returning guests on their toes (e.g. last year I think it was Cut Throat Cove that was completely reversed from its 2011 version). Based on all of that, tracking opening dates and former names just seems more trouble than it's worth, and is likely to run afoul of "no original research" as well. jcgoble3 (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts are add a description field, Make a former seasonal attraction list List of former Kings Island attractions--Nickvet419 (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a former seasonal attraction list would do much good. We could structure the section like HalloWeekends. The difference between HalloWeekends and Haunt is that at HalloWeekends, the attractions barely change. They aren't really tweaked each year. If an attraction is changed, all the props will be removed and a whole new theme will be added so its pretty clear cut when a haunt opens. I've actually never been to Kings Island's haunt so it might be easier for someone else to do it because they might have a better understanding.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

2014 attraction(s)

Hey guys, I just wanted to let everyone know I have created a draft for the (probable) new coaster in 2014. If you follow Kings Island, you probably know that footers were spotted at opening day today. Feel free to add any info to the draft, I found this to be a great way to keep the GateKeeper article up-to-date before it was officially announced.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You beat me too it!--Dom497 (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Number of water rides

The infobox lists the park as having only three water rides. As a regular guest I know that there are many attractions in Soak City, but I'm wondering how "water ride" is being defined. Can anyone clue me in? Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dozzzzzzzzzing off: Water ride, here, is defined as a ride in the main portion of the park (i.e. the "dry park", or outside the waterpark section) that gets riders wet. There are three such rides: Congo Falls (a Shoot the Chutes ride in Action Zone), Race For Your Life Charlie Brown (a traditional log flume on the border between Planet Snoopy and Rivertown), and White Water Canyon (a (river rafting ride in Rivertown). There is also Snoopy's Splash Dance in Planet Snoopy, but that is simply an open-air walkthrough "maze" with water features and not an actual ride. jcgoble3 (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. It also makes sense that the Soak City rides would be primarily talked about (numbered, etc.) on the Soak City page. Thanks. Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Listing park attractions

Now that we have an article dedicated to listing every attraction (i.e. List of Kings Island attractions), it may be time we remove the charts in the main Kings Island article to reduce its size and enhance its clarity. I'm thinking we should keep all the subsections that describe each park area, but only mention the notable rides from each eliminating the charts altogether. I'm going to begin transitioning the notable rides into prose, unless there is any opposition to this. As for the Halloween Haunt section, I'm proposing changing this to all prose with no mention of specific rides. If someone wants to retain the ride names, then I suggest importing them into the ride list article with appropriate references. Thoughts, concerns? --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm actually against lists like List of Kings Island attractions. I think every park's article should have its attractions. If we remove the charts, we lose a lot of valuable information that's not in List of Kings Island attractions. Regarding Halloween Haunt, we could make an article similar to HalloWeekends. Thoughts?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but as long as the list article exists, it's hard to support having ride charts in both. Listing all the rides goes somewhat against WP:INDISCRIMINATE anyway, especially rides that don't have significant coverage and lack references. Therefore, their value and notability can be debated. That's hard for me to admit, as I've spent a lot of time organizing the lists and adding content to them over the years. I just feel that long lists like these can be distracting and may be an Achilles heel that prevents good amusement park articles from becoming featured. A dedicated list article – especially for larger amusement parks – seems like a step in the right direction that reduces clutter and helps prose stand out where it should. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Updated: --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that I'm not against using lists altogether. Grouping the coasters into a single list would be helpful, for example. I also like the idea of creating a dedicated article for Halloween Haunt, and changing the Halloween Haunt section to all prose keeping it short per WP:DUE. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Updated: --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to begin tidying the attractions section up soon. Are there still any objections to removing the lists and keeping only a few significnt ones such as roller coasters and perhaps a brief timeline? --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I think removing most of the lists would be a great idea. Keep just a list of coasters (though that will open up a new bag of worms as to whether Surf Dog is a coaster) and maybe a few of the major or more notable flats. I'm indifferent on the timeline. jcgoble3 (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of some tables from the Kings Island article. Also, a bit off topic, we could remove some tables from other Cedar Fair park articles that share a similar layout to this article.--Dom497 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that long lists of rides in the main article can be distracting, and since many of them do lack substantiated references, it does diminish the notability of the article. I prefer to see the complete attraction listings in a separate article, so long as we don't run into a problem with having a separate list. I seem to recall that just recently, a list of attractions had to be merged back into the main article because the list's notability was questioned. Unfortunately, I can't remember which article that happened to.—JlACEer (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with those above: provided we have a detailed list, that same level of detail is not required here. I would try to model this article on some of the high-ranking park articles such as Idlewild and Soak Zone (FA) and WhiteWater World (GA). In these cases, the articles discuss the attractions in prose only, removing the need for tables. Just looking at the tables now, every ride with a link to a dedicated article should probably be kept — the others could be kept at a user's discretion (e.g. half the rides in Planet Snoopy probably don't need mentioning but the Grand Carousel probably warrants a mention). Themeparkgc  Talk  22:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback so far. I've applied the proposed changes to the Action Zone section. I'd appreciate an further feedback that you might have before removing the chart and moving along to the next. Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections to the attraction list page as it could help clean up the page of so many lists but i do see a major difference between lists on the main page and the attraction page. Much of the information is lost and does not match up. I think this needs to be addressed before removing any lists.--Nickvet419 (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you be more specific with an example? The goal here is to capture the list information and move it into prose within the article. This won't happen for every ride, just those that are properly sourced and are considered notable. Remember, we won't lose this information without a way to retrieve it. If we ever need to, it will always be in the history of the article should we discover something was trashed that shouldn't have been. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The Lists should be moved as a whole. the lists on that page leave out information as year opened and description, information that is also used for the defunct list. Some of the make and model info were also changed when the new lists were created. If the lists are to be moved.. it should be done right. --Nickvet419 (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you realize that the list you're referring to is a featured list that went through a heavy amount of consensus to achieve that distinction. I highly recommend you sit tight and wait for others to weigh in before making mass changes to a reputable list. Furthermore, these changes don't need to be made overnight. This idea was brought up almost a year ago, and we are in no imminent danger of losing the information. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

ok, well i'm in for removing the many lists from this page as long as the information is moved correctly and and intact. Ill discuss the list itself on that page.--Nickvet419 (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Update

I'm going to being the process of moving information out of the lists and into prose within the article. That way, all properly sourced information is retained. This will make the lists redundant and unnecessary. Afterwards, I'll check back here with final thoughts before deleting the lists. Remember, you can always retrieve information that doesn't make the cut from the page's history at any time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sounds good. I do like the look of the lists on this page at the moment and is what i was referring to on the List of Kings Island attractions of transferring the list instead of how they were remade. But on the list page a ref column should be added, short description of ride type and history, and regrouped into Coster/flatrides ect. --Nickvet419 (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Shake, Rattle and Roll

Wackyike removing Shake, Rattle & Roll is probably the right thing to do based on its disappearance from the ride list at the park's website. Though it's still on the park map, this creates an inconsistency from the only "reliable" source cited for that ride. A recent DRN discussion goes into detail why insignificant rides in general should probably be avoided altogether, because when they are eventually removed, there probably won't be any coverage in reliable sources about the removal.

I was at the park last weekend and noticed a "Temporarily closed" sign by the entrance to the ride. The cars were all dismounted from the arms and sitting on the ground. Obviously it's going through some kind of maintenance or repair. However, since I'm not a reliable source, my observation doesn't count! It's probably just best we start removing these smaller rides from the ride lists. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

As of Friday, the entire ride had been completely removed from sight, even the queue rails were gone. A photo posted on KICentral tonight shows that even the ride's sign is gone, along with the "temporarily closed" sign. The rumor I've heard is that it will return in 2015 with a new light package and possibly a new name. Anyway, everything I just said is obviously not a reliable source, but it does give you an idea of what to watch for. I think removing the smaller rides in general is the right thing to do. jcgoble3 (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Soak City

@Eric.kirkey: There is no need to duplicate information from the main Soak City article here in this one. A separate article exists for a reason. You are clearly doing this in other amusement park articles as well, such as Kings Dominion. First, you should be using the edit summary in each edit explaining your intentions, and when you are reverted, you should discuss on the article's talk page to gain a consensus instead of edit warring. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Editing of 2014 Significant Fact

Hello, I'm just going to get right too it.

"2014: The longest inverted roller coaster in the world, Banshee, opened in the location previously occupied by Son of Beast within the park's Action Zone. The seven-inversion coaster was announced on August 8, 2013, and was built by Bolliger & Mabillard"

I believe that line should be edited, (Only slightly) to also provide that Banshee was also placed in the former location of Thunder Alley. A go-cart Race car track that was Pay per use.

"2014: The longest inverted roller coaster in the world, Banshee, opened in the location previously occupied by Son of Beast and Thunder Alley within the park's Action Zone. The seven-inversion coaster was announced on August 8, 2013, and was built by Bolliger & Mabillard"

As a possible suggestion to add that as well, as most of the Queue, station, lift hill, Drop, Dive loop, and the Loop interacting with the Lift Hill were all apart of this area occupied by Thunder Alley.

Source: http://www.themeparktourist.com/news/20130128/12433/image-thunder-alley-go-kart-track-removed-kings-island

Although this source was technically speculation, but the image does show the former spot of Thunder Alley removed, which is where the now Banshee attraction is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oblivioux (talk • contribs) 04:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestion. I added "Thunder Alley" to that statement as requested using this source. As for the location of the line queue, station, etc., we would need a source that confirms that. If one can be located, then the info would probably be better suited for the Banshee article as opposed to the Kings Island article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)