Talk:Viper (Six Flags AstroWorld)

Is this article necessary?

This basically gtfdgdfdga disambiguation page, all but two of these rides have their own articles and it wouldn't be hard to add the others. I'd like to propose that this page be redirected to the main Viper disambiguation page where we can add a separate section listing the rides. Just seems to me that there is very little in common between most of these rides apart from their name. What does everyone think? Seaserpent⁸⁵ 12:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the two other articles should be created, and this article should be made a disambiguation page to all of the Viper roller coasters. Branson03 16:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Leijurv: In regard to this edit, there are a few issues. First, the Six Flags St. Louis article does say that Batman: The Ride replaced Viper. However, it doesn't clarify that it sits on the same site as Viper, nor is there a reliable source cited for any of that. In the Batman: The Ride article, it doesn't mention this either. We need to be careful about making assumptions without the backing of reliable sources, which is a big reason why these coordinates were missing to begin with. A larger discussion on tracking old coordinate locations that can't currently be verified may need to be talked about at a higher level in another venue. I'm beginning to think they place a strain on our Verifiability policy, possibly making them unencyclopedic in nature. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: Honestly, I agree. Either I'm missing something important, or essentially no coordinates are verifiable...? By which I mean, I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a citation next to coordinates. I just recently was in a discussion about this: Talk:Canada#Coordinates. The big one is WP:OPCOORD which states Regardless of how coordinates are obtained, consider the precision specified in a Wikipedia article. Reliable secondary sources exist for some locations. Without a reliable source, the larger the object being mapped, the less precise the coordinates need to be. This seems to indicate that in the absence of a reliable secondary source on location, we can turn to a primary source. And WP:OGC makes no mention (that I noticed) of such verifiability. It even suggests: From other sources Using a GPS receiver with a clear view of the sky for crying out loud. WP:OR?? Honestly, I think of the coordinates the same way I think of images on articles: I don't really expect a citation proving that that coordinate or that image truly describes what the article is about, since it's like trivially verifiable. My personal view is that as long as the precision of the coordinates isn't misleading (I admit, I bungled that in this case), it is reasonable to give a best estimate. But only within reason. For example, given an article on a town in California that I can't locate, I would never paste in the coordinates of California. But, given something like a particular attraction within an area of reasonably small size, I might use the overall coordinate. For example, for an article on a roller coaster on a pier, it's preferable to give the location of the pier than none at all, since we know that it will be accurate to within the degree represented by the precision of the coordinate. Another example: Recoil_(Wonderla_Hyderabad) previously was at the World Expo Park, which states It was positioned on the corner of Melbourne and Glenelg Streets in South Brisbane, the current site of the Brisbane Convention & Exhibition Centre. This isn't a coordinate. Obviously, it's preferable to give a numeric coordinate instead of a cross street, so instead of taking that definition of location, I just took the coordinate from that convention centre's article. Other times, I find the coaster on Google Maps myself, sometimes referring to a park map that I find online. I really have no idea how to cite these and given that I haven't (to my knowledge) seen any cited coordinates at all ever... it seems reasonable to me to approximate, especially with a HTML comment explaining what happened. Leijurv (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's correct to assume that an inline citation isn't required or even obtainable in many situations. My understanding is that if it's plain as day to anyone looking up the coordinates, then they're fine. They're essentially the same thing as a book or film plot summary, where the primary source is used as the only reference. The problem you run into is when you are mapping objects or places that no longer exist. You can't see what's being targeted, because it's no longer shown on a map. That's definitely a problem for relocated or retired roller coasters. If you have a source that says the loading station was reused, or it clarifies that the ride was built on top of the same site as the former, then I think those would be the only times you could reuse coordinates (or retain them). So the sources I'm referring to don't actually provide coordinates, but they give us the ability to determine them.

Also, OPCOORD is essentially the same level as an essay under a WikiProject. It doesn't officially hold the weight of a Wikipedia policy or guideline. If a coordinate is challenged, I'm not sure there's anything the proposer can cite in policy to defend its inclusion. Perhaps we should start an RfC at one of the WikiProjects to get wider community input. The talk pages of WP Amusement Parks or WP:GEO might be good places to host it, or even WP:VPP. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you know of any coordinates with citations? (inline or otherwise)

Honestly, I do lean towards the previous locations of relocated objects deserving a little bit of a lower standard. If something currently exists, it's conceivable that a RS might write about it, but if it's a coaster that existed for a few years in the early 1900s, we probably won't ever be able to do better than "it was on Coney Island near X street" or "it was on Young's Pier" etc, and I don't see why that should preclude us from putting those approximate coords in the article. In other words, if we deliberately stay to a low resolution (on the number of digits), why not allow things with a little bit lower resolution (say, 3 digits instead of 4) when it's ambiguous?

I'm on board with starting a RfC on this, it could be as broad or as narrow as you like (e.g. from "when do we cite coordinates, when do they need to be verifiable, can they be approximate" to "can roller coasters have the coordinates of their enclosing amusement park if there are no sources on their specific location"). Leijurv (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not aware of any coordinates with citations, and if there are some out there, what would that reference point to I wonder? ;-P

I guess the overall point I was making is that if coordinates are provided for something that no longer exists, then there should be at least one citation somewhere in the article that agrees with the area we're mapping (e.g. source says coaster existed near the lake in the north area of the park, source mentions the coaster's boarding station was near where the hot dog stand is today, etc.). The source could even have an aerial photo or an old park map. As long as there is something verifiable, it should be fine. Maybe move forward with that in mind and if it becomes an issue, then consider having an RfC? Thoughts? Seems like a low priority but would be nice to see at some point what the community thinks about all this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I agree overall. I think I just disagree in the precision needed. In my eyes, if we know the park, that's more than good enough. For example Star Jet didn't have coordinates, but I mean it's clearly on that pier, sources say it was on that pier, so I just took the coordinates of the pier. Like, if the coaster was verifiably In The Park then I don't see the problem with giving the coordinates of the park. Leijurv (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

In a situation where the coaster is notable enough to have its own page, then most likely the park would be as well (also having its own page). If a reader lands in a coaster article missing coordinates, they could simply click into the park article to find the park's coordinates. Would we need the same coordinates in both the park and coaster article? Not sure I see a real benefit there, but I'm not strongly opposed to it either and wouldn't stand in the way. As for precision, I still think we should consistently shoot for .0001 in roller coaster infoboxes when possible as described by Template:Infobox roller coaster, but I suppose if you're listing the park's coordinates, then it would make sense to be less precise at .001 approximation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The project hasn't been very active the last few years, but just so you're aware, I went ahead and notified the WikiProject Amusement Parks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I think in this case, we can round coordinates if we're unsure. At the worst, we can give the coordinates for the park, which would be highly rounded. But if there is a source which says a coaster/ride was at a specific location in the park, we should include that and adjust coordinates accordingly. epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks epicgenius. I think we're in agreement on that. How do you feel about situations where the park already has coordinates for itself in its own article. Should we be duplicating those coordinates at the defunct coaster articles as well, or is it better to leave the infobox field blank? Seems like over-duplication to me, but would appreciate to hear your thoughts. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

GoneIn60, I think we should have coordinates in the coaster articles if possible, even if it's just the coords for the park. This at least would give readers an idea of where it was, if they don't click on the park article. epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, looks like we're settling on the following:

1. For active roller coasters, simply list the coordinates currently found in an online mapping system at a reasonable precision (.0001)
2. For relocated/defunct coasters, verify in sources where the location was in the park. If none are available, simply list the park's coordinates at lower precision (.001)
3. If the park's coordinates are unknown and/or unverifiable, leave the field blank in both the park and coaster articles.

Look good, sound reasonable? --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

That looks good and sounds reasonable to me. I'll follow this going forward. Even when the park coordinates are at weird precision I will translate / round to that desired precision. Leijurv (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Leijurv! Appreciate your help! I would only add that when possible, try to target the loading station of the roller coaster. Cheers! --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)