Template talk:Infobox amusement park

This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 11 July 2022, see discussion.
No consensus, 27 December 2018, see discussion.

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes 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.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles

Amusement Parks

This template 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

Before starting a new discussion here, please check to see whether your comments may relate to other amusement park infobox templates as well. If they do, please start your discussion on this project page. This will help keep all discussions related to one or more of the following infoboxes in the same place: amusement parks, water parks, themed areas, roller coasters (dual-tracked), water rides, other attractions and attraction models.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

What is the correct usage for coordinates?

Should we be using "Park Coordinates" or "coordinates"?

I am sorry if this is a silly question. I am trying to wrap my head around how to do all this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technodisney (talk • contribs) 04:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unfamiliar with how templates work, the best choice is to copy the example on this page, or copy an existing template from an article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I worked out how to use the coordinates. Updated the coordinates on a few articles here Category:Wikipedia infobox amusement park articles without coordinates. I did however notice that there are some articles like Fantasyland where the coordinates are there, but it is for the 5 locations and there is not one central set of coordinates relevant for Fantasyland. Is there any way to make cases like that not come up on that category? Technodisney (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preview warning and hatnotes moving to templatestyles

Page watchers may be interested in MediaWiki talk:Common.css § Preview warning and hatnotes moving to TemplateStyles Izno (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Attraction" vs. "ride"

I'm working on expanding the ICON Park article, and I noticed that when I use "rides =", it automatically puts the total under a section labelled "Attractions".

I feel like there's a difference between a "ride" and an "attraction", with "ride" being much more specific. For example, I'd say ICON Park has five "rides", but ten "attractions" (with attractions expanding to include the aquarium, two museums, a theater, and an arcade complex). I'm wondering where in the infobox, if anywhere, I should make the distinction between a "ride" and an "attraction", especially since the five rides are neither roller coasters nor water rides. If I put them in "other_rides =", I feel like the word "other" implies that the five excluded attractions are also rides when they aren't. I know this is all just semantics, but I'd greatly appreciate others' input, especially as I'm new to editing. Pastel143 (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pastel143, this is an excellent point! Looking at Kings Island for example, "Attractions" doesn't fit, because on that level there are over 100 at the park. The Total: 48 number is only referring to actual rides. I don't recall the history on that parameter, but it would seem like a necessary change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found this discussion in the archive: Template talk:Infobox amusement park/Archive 1#Edit request on 4 September 2013

Looks like at least back in 2013, that portion of the infobox was labeled "Rides". Not sure when or why that changed. Ahecht, any thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed at Special:Diff/878585375 by User:Zackmann08. It would probably be best to change label15 to "Total Rides", and add a line for "Total Attractions". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Sounds reasonable. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you both, but also, do we have any specific guidelines on what constitutes an "attraction" and what doesn't? For example, ICON Park is an "entertainment complex" so along with rides/arcade/museum/theater/aquarium (all the things I called attractions) there are also restaurants and stores making up ICON Park that I didn't see fit to call "attractions" the same way an aquarium or a theater is. Would it be correct of me to draw the line there?

Sorry if this is irrelevant to the discussion of the template itself, I can move it if it is, but I noticed you'd said there were over 100 attractions at Kings Island and it made me wonder if there was any one definition Wikipedia or just the amusement park community in general uses to differentiate ride vs. attraction vs. non-attraction. Pastel143 (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, there aren't any specific guidelines. When the number could potentially be questionable (or if it's challenged), we would then typically look to see what sources are saying for clarification. The ride count should be a lot less controversial and shouldn't necessarily require anything other than the primary source, which in this case would be ICON Park's website. One of things you'll want to keep in mind while you're starting out on Wikipedia is that it's meant to be a reflection of the sources. If something is published by a reliable source, then it's verifiable and eligible for inclusion. Being an expert with your own definition, for example, would not override the requirement that sources agree. Hope that makes sense! --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]