Talk:SkyScreamer

Amusement Parks: Six Flags Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Six Flags task force (assessed as High-importance).

File:Six Flags St. Louis SkyScreamer.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Six Flags St. Louis SkyScreamer.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents section

An anon IP removed this section without explanation, an edit that was undone by another editor. However, upon reviewing this section and its sources, I have decided to remove it again. The main reason is a lack of reliable sources backing up that this incident occurred. I've searched for "SkyScreamer Six Flags St. Louis accident", and substituted "incident" and "malfunction" in place of "accident", and the only info I can find is in forum posts on theme park fan-sites. I can't find a single independent news story confirming this incident, so it is possible we're dealing with something that got blown out of proportion. Further, malfunctions that don't harm anyone (nobody was on the ride at the time, something that every description appears to be consistent about) aren't terribly notable, especially since the ride re-opened relatively soon thereafter. Machines do break all the time, and the only reason that this would be notable is if someone was injured or worse during it, in my opinion. --McDoob AU 93 22:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge

Vol Ultime and Star Flyer (Six Flags New England) really shouldn't have their own articles for what is the same ride (Star Flyer), manufactured by the same company (Funtime), and operated by the same company (Six Flags). I propose merging these articles into this article about the SkyScreamers. If there are no objections, I'll perform the merge later myself. Themeparkgc Talk 23:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly Oppose I can see Vol Ultime being merged into SkyScreamer because it is the same exact thing as the rides just with another name to it, but I like it separate because it has a different name. But for Six Flags New England's Star Flyer, I say wait tell the park announces the ride, since rumors point out that it will be completely different than the SkyScremaers with the name, height, capacity/seats, the object at top, and paint.--Jpp858 (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what might happen, at its current state, the Star Flyer (Six Flags New England) article could easily be incorporated into this article. Also, minor differences between the rides such as the object at top and the paint could easily be described in a sentence or two and would not warrant an entirely new article. If it so happens that the new ride for SFNE is vastly different from the other rides, I'm sure the reversion of the move could be discussed at that time. Themeparkgc Talk 01:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support They're all still Funtime Star Flyers, regardless of stats. The existing SkyScreamers (and Vol Ultime) have different heights, so that shouldn't be a stumbling block to merging the articles. --McDoob AU 93 01:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Slightly oppose~~ I think if we're going to merge all of them together, it would be better off just making it a Star Flyer article, including all the Star Flyers.-Astros4477 (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I know the argument of other stuff exists really shouldn't be used, take a look at articles like Davy Crockett's Explorer Canoes. The attraction operated at four parks under three different names each with different characteristics, yet because they are all the same ride, only one article exists. I feel it is a similar case here. I personally would question the notability of Star Flyer (Six Flags New England) as it stands (mainly due to the only sources included are from the same website and they state it is only proposed and not definitely going to happen). I chose to propose the merger because I feel it would fit within this article, rather than nominating it for deletion. As for creating an article about the Star Flyer itself, I think that is for a discussion on another day. Themeparkgc Talk 04:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After second thought, I support the merge.--Astros4477 (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A draft of the proposed merged article can be found here. Themeparkgc Talk 05:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the articles. Themeparkgc Talk 06:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

InfoBox

I am just wondering if we can take off all each SkyScreamer info off the infoBox, because it just going to get longer since it is rumor that other parks are getting the ride and there is already a section in the article that mostly gives the same exact info. --Jpp858 (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think at the moment it is fine. Take a look at WindSeeker – it is the same situation there. If more SkyScreamers are announced by Six Flags we can use the {{{small}}} parameter in the infobox to automatically collapse the sections about each park. Themeparkgc Talk 00:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted to 'C' class

Hi all! I have looked at this article, and feel it meets all of the C class criteria, so I have promoted it! Mdann52 (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Status promote

If it has a reference in the installations section, then I will promote and nominate it to good status. --Starship9000 (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's WAY too soon to even think about this article becoming GA. Let's see about getting it to B-class first. Baby steps ... --McDoob AU93 16:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is baby steps mean? --Starship9000 (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It means you should work on getting the article to B-class first. It is possible to go from C-class to GA, but it might be better to try after B-class first. That will get you a long way towards GA-class. Sure there's no userbox associated with getting something promoted to B-class, but the goal should be making the article better, not populating one's user space. --McDoob AU93 20:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to work on is the writing style. Do you realize that in the Tower section (both subsections thereof) every sentence but one contains the word "features"? (One sentence even had the word twice, but I've helped that one a bit.) LadyofShalott 03:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be using Facebook as a reference here - at all, let alone multiple times. LadyofShalott 03:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I nominate it to B-class? Do I add a template or anything or is there anything about nominating it to B-class?--Starship9000 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be nominated. Once it reaches this criteria, someone can change it to B-Class.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 15:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How am I suppose to earn the userbox about it then? --Starship9000 (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no userbox for B-Class.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me restate my point from earlier ... with all due respect, if you're doing it for a userbox, then you're doing it wrong. You should be doing it because you want to improve the article. Anything that comes from that is merely a bonus. The goal is not some code to put in your user space ... the goal is to create an encyclopedia. --McDoob AU93 16:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing this to improve the article, not the userbox. --Starship9000 (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then please explain your earlier comment of "How am I suppose to earn the userbox about it then?". --McDoob AU93 22:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to promote it to B-class criteria. Any way besides nominating it? --Starship9000 (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can request reassessment at the relevant wikiproject. However, you should address the issues that have been raised on this talkpage first. LadyofShalott 23:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are the issues on this talkpage of SkyScreamer? --Starship9000 (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try rereading my earlier comments. LadyofShalott 02:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, we need to see if we can get it to B-class. Is there anything we should do in the article to nominate it to B-class. --Starship9000 (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Put it in neutral, please. Here is a page that should help you understand what should be there. --McDoob AU93 17:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? --Starship9000 (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors have been posting information to assist you, yet you keep asking about promoting the article, as if you haven't seen their responses. Please calm down, take the time to read what has been presented, then see what you can do to improve the article based on what has been presented. Remember, there is no deadline, so there is no need to be hasty. --McDoob AU93 18:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To raise the assessment class of the article, the article needs to be improved. Suggestions of how to improve it have been made. Please follow through on those before asking any more about nominations and assessments. LadyofShalott 21:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should I add something like this:

For the ride at Marineland, see SkyScreamer (Marineland)

--Starship9000 (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reasonable question. In my opinion, it could indeed be added, even though there is no such article for the ride (it redirects to Marineland's article). I'd see no harm in it, although the better form would be {{about|tower rides at Six Flags parks|tower ride at Marineland|MarineLand}}. --McDoob AU93 22:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will go ahead and add it to the article. --Starship9000 (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

McDoodAU93, I actually went and putted that thing in the article. Any thing else I should do in the article besides that? --Starship9000 (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) Again, please read through all the comments here and on your talk page where editors have offered assistance. Take some initiative. --McDoob AU93 01:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do I do to nominate it to B-class? That is the question! How do I nominate it to B-class? --Starship9000 (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm curious. Why can you not read through the talk pages, see what other editors are concerned with, and then address those concerns first? Remember, there is no deadline. --McDoob AU93 00:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your question has been answered, yet you persist in repeating it. What don't you understand about what we have said above? LadyofShalott 03:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I promoted it to B-class for the project's quaility scale. How's that? --Starship9000 (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starship, you can't promote an article when you are unfamiliar with the criteria. The first step you should take is to find a way to replace any thing you sourced to a photo. For example, "St. Louis and Great Adventure versions feature the company logo of Six Flags above the globe,[26][27] while Discovery Kingdom and Fiesta Texas versions does not" is original research. It's also fairly trivial information. This statement "Texas SkyScreamer will feature a different color scheme than the others with red, white, and blue, to represent the colors of the Flag of Texas" is not in the reference given. I don't know if more leeway is given to articles about rides since there's fewer reliable sources in existence, but a lot of these references are clearly unusable. The only time reference 7 supports everything it is stated to have referenced is when it says the opening of the Texas one will be in the spring of 2013. Ryan Vesey 18:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rewards and userboxes about the good article nominating such as this one is the Good Article Barnstar and a userbox that looks like this:

This user helped promote SkyScreamer to good article status.

Anything you want me to do to get it to B-CLASS? Like add references? Add images? Anything? I might go work on a roller coaster, bridge, or amusement park article and get that to good status. It can either be Incredible Hulk, Tsing Ma Bridge, 2013 in amusement parks, Central Park Carousel, or Diamond Head Light. Seriously, anything I should do to get B-CLASS--Starship9000 (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Just to make it blatantly obvious, here are things I have just pulled out from the discussion above (I have also a couple of issues of my own at the end):

detailed criteria for B-Class articles can be found here
writing style of the article needs to be improved, consider requesting for a copy-edit
Facebook as a reference should be avoided
sources in the article which are just photos should be replaced
if a citation is added ensure it covers the information that proceeds it
most of the sources are from Six Flags themselves - they should be replaced where they can with more reliable secondary sources like newspaper articles
citation needed and unreliable source tags needs to be resolved

If these issues are addressed, the article will be closer to the standard it needs to be in order for a promotion. This does not mean that it will definitely get GA status though! Once you think you have resolved an issue, feel free to reply with the number relating to the point above and other editors involved can verify it. Hope this makes it clear for you. Themeparkgc Talk 23:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Edited: Themeparkgc Talk 01:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issues on this page so I think it should be promoted to B-class. First of all, do you add a template to promote the article to B-class or do you change the project's quality. I think it definitely meets the B-class criteria so do I change the quality scale or add a template or something like that? --Starship9000 (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starship, he just pointed out the issues to you. Ryan Vesey 00:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are the issues and how do I even solve these issues? --Starship9000 (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, PLEASE, PLEASE tell me you read the very thorough post from Themeparkgc that you just responded to. This is what we're on about. People are telling you exactly what's wrong, and then you say "nothing's wrong, let's promote it". You continue to prove that you're not able or willing to read the information that is provided for you at your request. --McDoob AU93 00:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starship, look at the yellow section above. Themeparkgc Talk 01:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvements

OK, instead of trying to explain what needed changing, I started changing it, but first a huge thank-you to Themeparkgc for his comments. I've gone through the existing installations of the rides to remove as many primary sources as I could, replacing them with third-party reliable sources, such as newspapers. Some primary sources are acceptable if they merely establish the date the ride was announced; this may need to be the case for Vol Ultime as I could not find any Montreal or Quebec newspaper website that covered the announcement of the ride (and I checked in both English and French). I was, however, able to locate a French-language source for its opening date and stats, so the article reflects that.

As to the use of Facebook as a source, I agree it should be as little as possible, and if used at all it should be for non-controversial information. In the case of where SF St. Louis' version was going in the park, I left it there and linked to a response from SF St. Louis' official Facebook account. If someone can find a newspaper article mentioning this, that would be better and this would come out.

I can track down newspaper articles about the SF Over Texas and SF Over Georgia announcements without any trouble, especially for the latter as it's my home park. My own research has discovered that SFOG's version may not reach the proposed height in the announcement. My source for this is the FAA, which is as reliable as they come, but the park is sticking to its guns for the height, so I think I'll leave this out in case they've been awarded a variance of which I'm not aware.

--McDoob AU93 03:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should I track the newspaper articles about the SGAdventure announcement? --Starship9000 (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What announcement would that be? There is one here for the announcement of the ride's planned installation and one for its opening. Is there another announcement of which I'm not aware? And why would we add an article about SF Great Adventure planning on hiring seasonal workers? Was it added solely because it had a picture of SkyScreamer in it? I'm curious as to what statement this article was intended to back up. --McDoob AU93 16:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

promoting it to B-class

I do not see issues so is it ready for B-class? --Starship9000 (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, addressing concerns relating to reliable references in the design section would be a start. Facebook is never considered to be a reliable source and original research has also been spotted in that section. There are probably more concerns, so I would say it is not ready for B-class status yet. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 19:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that all the Facebook pics need to go. I understand why people were using them, as photographic evidence for the design/color of the ride. That said, it becomes original thought to say what color the editor thinks it is as opposed to what reliable sources (even the park itself, which in this case would be allowable under WP:PRIMARY) say it is. I've been having a time finding reliable info on this. --McDoob AU93 20:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The facebook pictures needs to be deleted from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. If you go find them, I will award you a barnstar. The maintenance tag no longer in the article. --Starship9000 (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starship, this is your adopter. You were asked not to discuss promotion of articles to new "statuses" during the course of your adoption. Seeing that your first set of answers were inadequate at best, I would strongly suggest that instead of trying to water down Wikipedia to barnstar gaining exercises, you actually read the policies you've been linked to, addressed the numerous problems with this article that have been pointed out to you, and focus on working on your adoption course. You have been talked to by over a dozen seasoned editors so far, so there is no shortage of people to ask if you have questions, but the bottom line is that continually striving to promote articles solely for you to display it as a personal achievement is disruptive and if this behavior doesn't stop, we are likely going to have to look at other options. I'm not trying to be a downer, but we need you to channel your enthusiasm into more productive uses rather than focusing on creating an ego wall on your userpage. So please, why don't you for now focus on adoption rather than this article. There is absolutely no deadline for this article to be "B-Class" or a "GA", but you are definitely at a crossroads right now. Thank you. --Go Phightins! 01:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; but as a side note, I think you misunderstand, Starship. Images posted to Facebook are generally not licensed and are not on Wikimedia Commons at all. Random people just uploaded these pictures, and it could be their own work or somebody else's. Either way, do not worry about it because the Facebook are not on Wikimedia Commons. Also, there are some Facebook sources still in place and a number of concerns have gone unaddressed. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 01:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm debating removing the entire "Design" section. It's not sourced very well, it doesn't really add that much to the article in its current form and, if removed, I don't think will irreparably harm it. It really is more like WP:TRIVIA than anything. What do other editors think of that option? --McDoob AU93 01:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links

There was an edit dispute not too long ago regarding the number of links to Six Flags park pages for the given park's installation of SkyScreamer. Some editors think it's too promotional, while others feel it's a legitimate use of external links. Since the pages are pretty repetitive, and any one page will get you to the other six, I would agree that maybe only one would be needed. Which one? I'd say the first one installed, which would be Six Flags St. Louis.

However, I would also be afraid that we'd get editors wanting THEIR park's page highlighted instead, so maybe it is a good idea to just go ahead and include all of them. Opinions? --McDoob AU93 17:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support only one. WP:EL says we should minimize the number of external links. I agree with you that it makes sense to only include the first one. Ryan Vesey 17:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It could be done with a visible note that it's the first installed, and with a commented out editing note that we only need the one link. LadyofShalott 18:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SFA's SkyScreamer

Can somebody add SFA's addition to the info-box? --Jpp858 (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is the template cannot handle more entries. You would need to reach out to the people that manage the template to see if they can work on it to allow more entries beyond 1-9. --McDoob AU93 15:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feet to meter

There is some inconsistency with the conversion from feet to meter and the other way around. In the History part two towers of 390 ft and 400 ft are both converted to 120 meter, which is of course not right. JulioJo (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]