Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Disney attractions

Hi all. I've done some serious pruning on two articles, Haunted Mansion and Fantasmic!, and removed a rather large amount of praise, excessive detail, original research, etc. from both. A bit of edit warring has resulted with a couple of IPs, and Fantasmic! is now semi-protected for a little while. I have always thought that the best way to prevent articles from getting worse is to make them better, but the sourced and encyclopedic expansion of such articles is outside my scope of expertise so I have to leave that up to you, the experts (pinging McDoobAU93)--I am, however, greatly interested in not having Wikipedia serve as a brochure for the attractions. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Disney fans being Disney fans (I know, I am one and some of my first edits on Wikipedia 8 years ago were very fan-based), we try and plus up articles without realizing how the system works. I do agree that we need more data on these incredibly notable attractions. It's also worth noting that there is a significant amount of lore that Disney itself has produced on these attractions. While that would make it problematic under WP:PRIMARY, it may be some of the best info that we have. --McDoobAU93 16:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Right, I agree with the "brochure" concern. We should avoid listing attractions for the sake of listing them. If they're notable, then there should be at least a few secondary sources attesting to that. When there isn't, then the existence of a standalone article should be debated. Some attractions with only primary sources might be better off as an honorable mention in a Disney article (or list) as opposed to having its own page. My 2¢ anyway... --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • See, I just don't know enough about this area to judge what's notable, or what the acceptable sources are, so I'm not going to go around nominating for deletion (unless it's an obvious case). I guess what I'm asking you guys also is to help with trimming and reverting: in those two articles I've been up against at least three IP editors already, who simply revert without improving and without so much as an edit summary or a talk page comment. That's frustrating, and those editors need to be, well, educated on guidelines and stuff like that. Team effort and stuff, rah-rah--all that good collaborative spirit. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The American Adventure

Hi all, so I noticed there seems to be some issues surrounding the following articles:

The issue being is that The American Adventure and The American Adventure Theme Park seem to be the same and The American Adventure (Epcot) used to be at The American Adventure before being re-added to the epcot redirect. I was thinking that the The American Adventure content should be all moved to the The American Adventure Theme Park page and that The American Adventure page turned into a disambiguation page given that there is also an album of the same name.

I have bought this here because I don't really know how to tackle the history merge side of things and was hoping someone else may have some experience in this kind of situation. Thanks, Salavat (talk) 05:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: anything you can do here in the way of a history merge? From a quick look it seems to be quite messy with parallel histories on the articles. What would you recommend? Thanks Salavat for bringing this up. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

AfD notice - Thunder Looper

Nomination of Thunder Looper,Alton Tower for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thunder Looper,Alton Tower is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunder Looper,Alton Tower until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Alakazam (Pleasure Island)

I stumbled on this article recently. Can anyone involved in this project make sense of the description as it is completely outside my area of "expertise" (sic). Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see featured pictures added as a class for us. Unfortunately, I have no idea on how to add that. If someone else could, that would be great. Elisfkc (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Starin's Glen Island

I made an edit to the article on Starin's Glen Island (a defunct amusement park in Westchester County, N.Y.) to correct what I believe to be factual errors. In the section regarding the prior ownership of the island property before it was purchased in the late 1870s by entrepreneur and former Congressman John H. Starin, who subsequently built the amusement park/theme park that bore his name there, the article notes that the island was purchased in 1847 by one Lewis Augustus De Pau, who proceeded to build a grand mansion at the site, which he sold to one John Schmidt in 1862 in order to move to Prussia. The article related that Depeau entertained many notables of the era there, including "Presidents Chester A. Arthur, Ulysses Grant [and] James A. Garfield," as well as "Jenny Lind, Aaron Burr and Daniel Webster." I took the liberty of removing the reference to Burr, who had died in 1836, eleven years before De Pau built his mansion there. I also removed the reference to the three presidents, none of whom were particularly prominent during that time - they would not become notables until the Civil War (Grant) and the years following the war (Garfield and Arthur), long after De Pau had sold the property and its great mansion, and so it was unlikely that De Pau would have entertained them at his estate. It is possible and even quite probable that one of the subsequent owners of the property, either Schmidt or Starin, who purchased the island and the mansion in 1879, after Schmidt's death, would have entertained the three presidents there, but I have no direct proof of this and left them out. I left in the references to Lind, a popular opera singer and Webster, a congressman, secretary of state, and presidential hopeful, as both were celebrities at the time De Pau owned the mansion and entertained prominent people there.

Pdeck2013 (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion

There is a move discussion at Talk:Revolution (Pleasure Beach Blackpool). Comments are welcome, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Articles that cover incidents at amusement parks

There is a discussion at Talk:Incidents at Cedar Fair parks#Paramount parks?!? that was resurrected recently. The question is whether or not we should include incidents at a park that occurred while it was under different ownership (different from the title of the article). Looking for some additional insight, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The park remains the constant, while the ownership may change. If the park changes hands, the history of that park also changes hands. --McDoobAU93 15:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Article layout concerns

Sharing some of the concerns from the previous thread, we should probably hash out some of the layout issues that have cropped up over the years. In a discussion at Talk:Kings Island/Archive 1#Questionable content and style, the concern was brought up that food, shops, games, and other minor features common in most amusement parks should be excluded from articles on Wikipedia. These are trivial items which lack significance in secondary sources and should be removed. They're not adding value and seem to violate WP:NOTGUIDE. We can make exceptions for those that hold historical significance and have been widely published, but I expect that to be extremely rare. The Standards page could use an update as well. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistent italics

Hi User:GoneIn60. Back to the Future: The Ride is italic, Soarin' has a mix. My understanding from [1] is that they should not be italic. Maybe worth leaving a comment in the articles to explain once fixed. Regards Widefox; talk 10:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Widefox: Yes, there has been inconsistent usage across Wikipedia when dealing with amusement rides. Most of the time, italics are not used and they shouldn't be. The Chicago Manual of Style and Associated Press Stylebook do not recommend italicizing names of structures such as buildings, the closest subject to roller coasters. The items that are mentioned are very specific, such as with ships and trains. This is why a vast majority of sources cited in these amusement ride articles do not italicize the names either, and if there is disagreement in a particular article, the sources there should settle the debate. It appears you've come across two articles where this hasn't been discussed and corrected, but since each article operates under its own standalone consensus, we shouldn't enforce italics in the IMAX article simply because the main article uses them. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
All good, thanks. My point is that we cannot have such internal inconsistency - suggest this choice:
  • A) if italicised in the article then use of that article title should be per that = bad
It's easier to prevent such problems, and I think MOS should be applied to remove italics based on:
I've added a non italic item to Back to the Future (disambiguation). Regards Widefox; talk 11:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Right, we shouldn't have internal inconsistencies, but they will obviously exist in articles that are not heavily watched by those who know the MOS well. I don't have time at the moment to correct these two articles (or initiate discussions there), but feel free if you do. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I left comments on both talks, with links pointing to here. Widefox; talk 12:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Twisted Colossus

Would someone please check Twisted Colossus which recently had a second infobox added. A glance suggests there is one roller coaster which was upgraded. Surely that should be one infobox? If the second is wanted, please correct "speed_mph = 62 mph or 100 kph" by removing everything after "62". Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Johnuniq for mentioning this. I reverted those edits. For a major change like that (of which there is no precedence in other roller coaster articles), it would need to be discussed. That editor has been making a lot of major changes lately. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

"Under refurbishment" and WP:TRAVELGUIDE

I've seen a number of attractions and even the infobox for attractions adopt "under refurbishment" as an option. This usually means a maintenance period and frankly shouldn't change an encyclopedia article. Also, it would appear to run afoul of WP:TRAVELGUIDE, in which it is not our duty to provide travelers with up-to-the-minute status reports for the attractions in the articles. Combine that with the fact that many of these items are uncited and based on personal observations, I think we have a problem. --McDoobAU93 15:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it depends. For attractions that are undergoing routine maintenance for short periods of a week or even a month, it absolutely shouldn't be in the infobox. However, for rides that are "under refurbishment" for major work that takes months or even years, and where the ride going down for a long refurbishment is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, it absolutely should be in the infobox. Examples of appropriate uses are the track replacement at Big Thunder Mountain Railroad from January 2013-March 2014, the major rennovations to the Timber Mountain Log Ride at Knott's Berry Farm from January 2013-June 2013, the closure for retheming of Superman: Escape from Krypton from October 2010-March 2011, and the current track replacement of The Incredible Hulk (roller coaster) that started in September 2015 and will last until this summer. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I understand the concern. Especially in Disney park-related articles where rides often undergo restoration/maintenance, I see this happening all the time, regardless if it's down for several weeks, months, or most of a year. I'm in the camp that thinks the status field should represent 1 of the following 4: Operational, Under construction, SBNO or Closed (permanently). That's it, keep it simple. "Under refurbishment" and "Testing" introduces a subjective aspect that entices editors to overuse and abuse this field. When a ride is being radically changed, as in the examples listed by Ahecht, then "Under construction" can be used. We should stop tracking restoration, maintenance, and testing (which is often brief). Of course, enforcing it wouldn't be easy unless there was a way to hardcode that infobox field to only accept those 4 statuses (or whatever statuses we agree on). --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I think I could agree with extended, documented downtime, per Ahecht, and with GoneIn60's editing the infobox to remove the extraneous "testing" option. --McDoobAU93 18:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
How do you feel about "Under construction" being used to represent "Under refurbishment" as well? Technically, when a ride is being refurbished or modified, it is under construction. Right now, we use "refurbishment" to represent modifications as well as restoration, so it's not entirely accurate to begin with. By the way, I would leave the task of modifying the template up to Ahecht, as he/she seems to be a lot more familiar with the code involved. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
While I don't have a personal opinion one way or the other on any of this, I do have one question: What about coasters like Boomerang (Six Flags St. Louis) that are not operating indefinitely without any source saying when or if the coaster will reopen?Wackyike (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
First of all, it would be set to SBNO based on the source that states it is closed indefinitely. Then it should only be changed later when its reopening or permanent closure can be verified. Usually when there's a serious accident, an investigation and testing phase will follow, and the coaster may not reopen until the following season. It's fairly common not to hear or see any updates in the news for quite some time. The Smiler, for example, went through a very long period without updates. Something will eventually be published, and at the very least, the "Temporarily Closed" status at the Six Flags website will be removed once its operating again. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Ahecht, I noticed you made changes to the status field at Template:Infobox attraction, adding additional choices. Just curious what the thinking here is, as my impression from this discussion is that we're trying to limit the choices, not expand them. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: I just modified the documentation to reflect the choices that are currently supported by the template. If we no longer want to use those options, they should be removed from the template instead of being an easter egg. I added a tracking category at Category:Attraction_articles_with_custom_statuses to list all articles with non-conforming statuses, so it should be easier to fix them. I personally support having a limited number of statuses, such as Announced, Under construction, Operating, Relocated, SBNO, or Closed (and I'm not sure Closed is the correct word either -- if it's closed but there, it's SBNO, if it's been removed it is simply missing, not closed). However, we should get a real consensus and update {{Infobox attraction/status}} accordingly. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Ahecht, thank you for updating the documentation then, and especially for adding the tracking category. That will be very helpful to have for future reference. I agree that we need to solidify some kind of consensus, and I imagine doing that here will suffice as long as we notify the other relevant talk pages. I went ahead and posted notices just now. Let's see if we can get some additional feedback.
For those joining the discussion (or returning), see the survey section below. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

AfD discussion

Please see this Article Alert for a deletion discussion initiated by Astros4477 involving Frontier Lift. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Parks in China

There are a lot of amusement parks in China that need articles in English. How have other international parks gotten English pages? Translation or building the article from scratch? Also from 2016 in amusement parks a huge new one (Nanchange Wanda Park) has already opened but doesn't have anything yet. It is too overwhelming/intimidating to start a park page myself but I will help once others create it. ThemeParkFan1988b (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@ThemeParkFan1988b: I don't mind helping build this article, but I have one big issue with it right now. I can't seem to find the park's website. In fact, besides Wanda Group's website (which has a paragraph about it) and articles about Wanda chairman Wang Jianlin slamming Shanghai Disneyland that casually mention Nanchange Wanda Park, I can't seem to find anything about it. Elisfkc (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: Thank you, I am too scared to start the page. Yes, most of the press is just Wang Jianlin saying that he wants to take down Disney, I think this adds to the notability of the Nanchang park because it is the first big one that Wanda Group has opened, and from the photos I don't really think it looks as good as Shanghai Disney - just my personal opinion. Anyway, here are some sources I have com across.
  • RCDB - Rollercoaster Database listing for Nanchang Wanda Park
  • Variety - Talking about some copywrite and intellectual property issues. NOTE: This mentions Wanda City which includes the themepark and hotels and a shopping mall, should there be a page for that too?
  • US News - About opening day
  • Bloomberg - Actually comparing Nanchang to Disney
  • Time - Good details about the park and City
  • ABC - More details about the park
  • IAAPA FunWorld - Small article about design from International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions
  • Blooloop - Longer article about design
  • Theme Park Review - A first hand account from someone who went (not really cit-able but helpful to understand the park)
As for the official website from Wanda I think that it is only available in Mandarin at the moment and I am not great at searching for foreign websites. I am meeting up with a friend in a few days who speaks the language and will ask if they can do a quick look for it. I think it is weird because the smaller Wanda attraction - Wanda Movie Park has an English language website.

ThemeParkFan1988b (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@ThemeParkFan1988b: ok, I'll look into this on Monday at the latest. Elisfkc (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Status fields in attraction articles

The As have it. An RfC with five options is potentially disastrous, but fortunately in this case the consensus is absolutely clear (with 8 As, 3Cs, and 2Es). Drmies (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

As a result of the discussion above, it has been proposed by more than one editor to limit the number of available statuses within various infobox templates affiliated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks, such as Template:Infobox attraction and Template:Infobox roller coaster. The argument for doing so focuses on the concern that an encyclopedia should strive for long-term significance and avoid temporary, short-term reporting per WP:NOTNEWS. Statuses such as Testing, Technical rehearsals, etc., typically fall under the broader categorization Under construction and represent short-term status changes that are too insignificant to track on an encyclopedia. Taking different suggestions into account, here are the following options (Relocated and other statuses affiliated with extended infoboxes are not being considered here; this is the primary status field):

  • A – Operating, Under construction, Closed, or Removed
  • B – Operating, Under construction, Under refurbishment, Closed, or Removed
  • C – Announced, Operating, Under construction, Closed, or Removed
  • D – Keep the same (Announced, Operating, Under construction, Under refurbishment, Testing, Technical rehearsals, SBNO, or Closed)
  • E – Other (please specify in your response)

Please indicate which option you support in the Survey section below. For additional comments, to respond to editors' choices, and/or to continue the discussion above, please use the Discussion section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Update – "SBNO" has been replaced with "Removed" in options A, B, and C. See discussion below. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support A, Consider B – I believe we should keep this simple. Narrowing down the choices to the smallest possible list helps avoid situations where editors base their decisions on original research. I think "Announced" is unnecessary, mainly because if construction hasn't started, we can simply leave the status field blank. I'm not a huge fan of "Under refurbishment" either, as it can be encapsulated by "Under construction", but I would support it as a second option. The other statuses IMHO go against WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TRAVELGUIDE, providing up-to-the minute statuses that have very little significance to an encyclopedia. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support A - As noted earlier, we are not a go-to source for attraction operations. A narrows the focus to items that are easily cited with reliable sources: the ride is being built (or rebuilt); the ride is officially open to the public; the ride is closed for an extended period (with a cited explanation for the closure); or the ride is permanently closed. Those are the only encyclopedic selections available. Everything else goes against WP:TRAVELGUIDE and/or relies on personal observation. --McDoobAU93 14:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support C now that SBNO was removed from it. Support E - "Announced" "Under construction" "Operating" "Closed" "Removed" and "Relocated to...". See my comment in the discussion below. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 15:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support A – It seems better to narrow down the options than to have a variety of status' that go against WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TRAVELGUIDE as Gonein60 and McDoob have stated; continuing from that, it would also be a lot easier to classify something with a general status than to have a list of them that would change variably. With "Announcing" I would say the same and leave it blank, with "Under Refurbishment" listed under as "Under Construction". Anything else about "relocation or removal" of a ride should be listed as Closed and have a note in the paragraph stating such. And "Testing and Technical rehearsals" should be listed under as Under Construction. Adog104 Talk to me 17:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • On second thought of discussions, I would support "Removed" as a valid option rather than having it under "Closed". However "SBNO" and "Relocation" are different; "SBNO" should be removed entirely as it causes confusion and its a fan word while "Relocation" is redundant as McDoob and Gonein60 have said. Adog104 Talk to me 17:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support A --Thomprod (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support A - I believe that simple, and long standing statuses are best. I find Technical Rehearsals to be (etc) WP:NOTNEWS, and are just a more granular classification of Under Construction. I considered option E which would have been A with the addition of "Moved" - however, based on my reasoning for Under Construction, I think that this should fall under "Closed", with details in the article. Iblamefish (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support C Under refurbishment should be replaced with a threshold time period (such as 1 month), where anything under that amount constitutes open, and anything above that constitutes closed with a note (something like what I have put on Muppet*Vision 3D for DCA, but talking about refurbishment instead.) Elisfkc (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support E, Consider B' - I agree in the simplification, but believe Announced should also be included as there could be significant time (several months) between an announcement and construction beginning. Otherwise I believe everything in B covers all needs. I vote to include Under Refurbishment in B as some major attractions at theme parks, such as Soarin, undergo significant refurbishments that are timely and would merit inclusion in the article; therefore the status should be reflected. FirstDrop87 (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support E-I agree with FirstDrop87 here.Wackyike (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support A - I support simplification of the statuses, and as a result, I prefer A over all other options. --hmich176 22:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support A - This option seems to make the most sense. It is pretty straightforward. I am not a fan of "announced" as 95% of the time, the ride is under construction at the time of the announcement.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support A – I prefer this option because it is the easiest to understand and encourages more uniformity. -Euphoria42 (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support C – It would be sad to lose Announced. Information about pending rides, if officially reported and cited, is exciting. Often in Canada, because it is cold here, it is Announced at the end of one season, then winter, then built in the spring before opening for the next season. My experience is opposite to Astros4477, usually the announcement comes far before construction. --> ThemeParkFan1988b (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

  • We don't need the granularity of "testing", "technical rehearsals", and "under refurbishment", as those can be remapped in {{Infobox attraction/status}} to "under construction". Especially with "under refurbishment", which either indicates minor work that falls under WP:NOTNEWS/WP:TRAVELGUIDE or indicates that the ride falls is "under construction". However, we do need the granularity between "Announced" and "Under construction" as a large number of announced rides never get built but, with a few exceptions, almost all rides that start construction are completed. "SBNO", in addition to being jargon, is covered under "Closed". However, it is important to state whether the structure is still there or not, which is why I am proposing adding "removed" and "relocated to..." (the latter is already widely used). We can easily use {{Infobox attraction/status}} to remap "SBNO" to "closed" (under the assumption that if it wasn't removed it would be listed as SBNO), and put attractions listed as "closed" in a tracking category for manual review if we want to switch any of them to "removed". That is why I support "Announced" "Under construction" "Operating" "Closed" "Removed" and "Relocated to...". --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 15:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
It's an excellent point regarding SBNO. It's been on Wikipedia for so long, that I've never really given much thought to it. The only site that uses that status or phrase (that I'm aware of) is RCDB.com, and yeah, it is technically jargon that we should be avoiding. In light of that, I think allowing "Closed" to cover that status would be fine as long as we add "Removed" to the mix as you suggested. Previously, "Closed" was used to stand for both "closed permanently" and "removed/demolished". If McDoobAU93 agrees (since he's the only other one to comment so far), then I will eliminate "SBNO" and add "Removed" to options A, B, and C, before anyone else chimes in. I've notified all active editors listed at the project, so I expect we'll get more feedback over the next week or so.
As for "Relocated", I'm not sure that one is necessary in the primary status field. Usually when a ride is relocated, the article title will change to the new name. The Template:Infobox roller coaster/extend parameter is then used to create a subsection within the infobox, and the "Relocated" status can exist in that subsection. This discussion does not cover extended infobox statuses, which I feel should be a separate discussion to avoid confusion here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
No objections. SBNO is indeed fan jargon, and it's also very subjective; for example, what length of time and what sort of closure merits SBNO? Also agree that "relocated" is redundant, as the prose will describe a coaster's history, the article will reflect its current name, and the infobox should reflect the current state only. --McDoobAU93 17:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Now with the fourth here, SBNO has got to go. If a ride is SBNO it's closed, and having SBNO as a parameter causes confusion in articles, such as this one. Adog104 Talk to me 17:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The template should still support SBNO as an entry, but show it as closed. I think the removed entry is also silly, as it will require us to fix a lot of articles to switch from Closed to Removed. I think it is best to keep the furthest status from operational as closed. The article could include the information about whether it is SBNO or whether it has been removed, but I don't see a reason for the removed status in the infobox. Elisfkc (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The way I mocked it up at Template:Infobox_attraction/status/sandbox, "defunct", "closed", "sbno", and "standing but not operating" all display as Closed; "removed", "demolished", and anything starting with "relocated" display as Removed; and "under refurbishment", "under construction", "technical rehearsals", and "undergoing testing" display as Under construction. I understand the point about "relocated" not being needed, and have no problem lumping those under "removed". A vast majority of the articles at Category:Attraction articles with custom statuses are there because of "relocated", but the template can take care of that. See Template:Infobox_attraction/status/testcases. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Nice work, Ahecht! Your assistance with implementing this discussion's outcome will be greatly appreciated. Themeparkgc was one of the editors who used to maintain it, but he hasn't been on much the past couple years. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Elisfkc, adding "removed" won't really require us to fix them immediately. Technically, if a ride is removed, it is also closed. So demolished rides can get by just fine for a while on the old status of "closed". I see where you're coming from though; "removed" seems like an extra parameter that isn't entirely necessary. On the other hand, however, the removal of "SBNO" makes "closed" a lot more vague than it used to be. Having "removed" as an additional parameter helps differentiate between those that are still standing and those that aren't. Is that necessarily needed in the infobox? Maybe, maybe not. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Announced Status - I would like to see the inclusion of an Announced status to be available. I feel there is a significant time difference, such as several months and occasionally up to a year, between when a new ride is announced and when construction starts. What does everyone else think? FirstDrop87 (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
That is in option C, hence why I chose that one. Elisfkc (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Option C does not include "under refurbishment" though.FirstDrop87 (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, we can just leave the status field blank until construction starts. If the article exists, then people know it's been "announced". Spelling that out in the infobox seems redundant and unnecessary. Just my 2¢. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Usually, I like to give surveys like this at least 2-3 weeks, which is where we're at now. I was considering asking an uninvolved editor (possibly an admin) to close it. Let's wait a few more days now that we've had another editor today weigh in above. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
We wouldn't change the status to "Closed" when the waterpark closes for the winter, so I don't think we'd change the status here either unless an announcement is made about the future of the ride (the latest is that the ride is closed "at this time"). While it's unlikely that the ride will open again this season, if at all, that is just speculation at this point. All we have from reliable sources is that the ride has been closed for four days. We're trying to move away from a travel guide and to an encyclopedia. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
There are reliable sources that state the ride is closed for the rest of the season, and that it's uncertain when it will reopen (beginning of 2017 season or later). Since we are attempting to do away with the SBNO status, I thought the plan was to label long-term closures (more than a week or two) as "Closed" moving forward, and "Removed" when a ride is dismantled/demolished. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to move away from being a travel guide, but long-term, non-seasonal closures should NOT remain under the "Operating" status. Leaving it that way is just begging for an edit war IMHO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
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.

Tower of Terror talk page

Hello. I am new to WikiProjects, so I apologize if I am not going about this the correct way. A consensus is trying to be reached on the Social Media Note discussion on The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror talk page. There is currently one opposition to the note removal, and two supports for the note removal. I have a feeling that the discussion is winding down, but if anyone else wants to give their vote, you are welcome to. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thunder River Rapids Ride#2016 incident

In case you've missed it, just bringing to your attention the deaths of four patrons on the Thunder River Rapids Ride at Dreamworld Sydney on 25 October. One fact that seems to be unconfirmed at this time is the ride manufacturer. It was originally said to be Intamin, but they have denied it. The Parkz website [2] now says it was ".. though to be..." designed in house and by contractors.

"The design and construction of this ride is thought to be a combination of internal Dreamworld and externally contracted engineering efforts. At varying times the ride has utilised inflatable tubes for the rafts from Intamin, leading some to incorrectly assume it was an Intamin designed ride."

Any information, or input to the related pages (about 5 at the moment), would be welcome. 220 of Borg 08:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

MagicBands

I am going to start working on a MagicBand article in my sandbox in the next few days, since it was talked about by multiple news sources and Universal seems to now be copying/building on it with "TapuTapu" for Volcano Bay. Anyone who would like to help contribute is welcome to. Elisfkc (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Former Attractions

Should former attractions get their own category in templates like Epcot, Magic Kingdom, and Hollywood Studios? It seems to be really hard to get to a page for something like Horizons or Studio Backlot Tour without directly searching for it, perhaps it would be a good idea to put former attractions in either their own template or in a category underneath the present attractions? --Windyshadow32 (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

On one hand, they are already listed under Present and former attractions at the top of the templates and I feel like they should be a little harder to find, as the average Wikipedia user doesn't care about Horizons when they are looking at the Soarin' article. If they have a reason to get to Horizons, they will either know it's name or learn about it on another Wikipedia article that will link to it, and adding them to the existing navigation template would crowd it up too much. On the other hand, I think I remember some rule, somewhere or another that I can't find right now, that said that every article that uses the navigation template should be listed in the navigation template. In summary, I don't support adding closed attractions into navigation templates, but if it is done, I strongly believe they should be in their own navigation template rather than in the same one as current attractions. Elisfkc (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thank you, I was just wanting to know if it was a possible idea, and I definitely see where you are coming from, thanks for the help! :) --Windyshadow32 (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Annual Passholder Userbox

If anyone wants to use it, I have made an Annual Passholder userbox. Elisfkc (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Editing Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus

The article, Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, needs some cleanup. --George Ho (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

IAAPA

The International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions article needs a major rewrite, due to copyright violations and grammar issues. I am going to try to work on it over the next few weeks, but I would like additional help. Elisfkc (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Standing but not operating

Re the earlier discussion: "Status fields in attraction articles" about this term, if 'SBNO' is fan jargon, should we have an article on it?
I came across this term on the 'Thunder River Rapids Ride' regarding its closure after 4 deaths on 25 October. 220 of Borg 09:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@220 of Borg: I don't believe we should. Might be worth submitting an AfD. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Please weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whistle Punk Chaser. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Greetings. I am attempting to get the Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts article upgraded to featured list status here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts/archive1. If you are a member of this task force, your input will be valuable. Jackdude101 (Talk) 22:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting ride statuses....again!

Apologize for addressing this yet again, but at Mystic Timbers, we've run into a bit of an issue. We should only be using "Under construction" or "Operating" for a new roller coaster, but should it be set to operating as soon as the soft opening (media day) occurs? I've left it blank for now thinking it would be preferred to wait for the public opening, but thought I'd see what others think. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Go with the reliable sources. If the media reports from the media day say "Opening next week", then it shouldn't say "Operating" until next week. If the media reports say "The ride is now open to guests in advance of it's official opening next week", put "Operating" now. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. In this situation, there are two preview days. One was yesterday, in which it was open to media, industry enthusiasts, and roller coaster enthusiasts (who donated in exchange for an invitation). And this evening, the park will be open to those with a gold season pass. The rest of the public can't ride until the official opening tomorrow, which is the date most often reported in the press. The problem here is that we can't still say it's under construction either, which is why I've left it blank.
The more I think about it, the less sense it makes to NOT allow the "operating" status. Technically, we don't change operating to closed when a seasonal park closes for the winter. So if the construction phase is complete and the soft opening date has passed, we probably should just change it at that point to operating, since the coaster is operational just waiting for the season to begin. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I've been going with keeping them "under construction" until the official opening date, for all of the stuff here in Orlando. I figured that, since they are soft openings, they are still technically not open and could be closed back down at any point for more construction (patch work). Elisfkc (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
That's a good point too. The only problem is that every time a new coaster opens, the level of anticipation drives so much traffic to the article that it's practically impossible to prevent it. I've given up at this point! --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Club 33's

I am going to convert the Club 33 article and Wikidata entry to reflect all four resorts that will soon have a location. If anyone objects to this, feel free to discuss so here. The last version before these edits will be this one on Wikipedia and this one on Wikidata. Elisfkc (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Elisfkc, looking good so far. Depending on the length of the article, you may want extend the lead to two paragraphs, but yeah, I think it's great you're updating it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 3/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Amusement Parks, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Grand carousel: new offerings or offerings that can add to customer experience?

What could be added to the Grand carousel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.199.119.130 (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The better idea is to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Amusement_Parks/Standards#Attractions and build from there. --Elisfkc (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

AfDs

Please weigh in at the following AfD discussions:

Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Closed versus Removed

Can we get a consensus/written precedent set on what the difference between Closed versus Removed means on the template? In my opinion, if the structure containing the ride/show is destroyed following that ride/show's closure, it is removed. Otherwise, I would say it is closed (honestly, I don't see the need for the removed status, but that's something we seem to have reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 3#Status fields in attraction articles and I respect that). Multiple other users (or sockpuppets of the same one, not sure) seem to believe that closed should be treated as a synonym of removed (such as on Wonders of Life, Carousel of Progress, etc.) So, basically, I'm looking for a vote and discussion about which of the following should be the precedent. Thanks, --Elisfkc (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

When we consolidated the status options, "closed" was introduced as a non-jargon form of SBNO. That would mean that any show whose essential non-portable components are still in place is closed, otherwise it is removed. However, I would not object to your definition either, as it makes things neater for non-ride attractions, but it would be a change in consensus. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
That's what I'm looking for, a consensus of where the line between closed and removed is. Elisfkc (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Elisfkc, did you see the new discussion above under Infobox template modifications for status field beginning with Revisiting statuses? Rather than reiterating a long discussion, I agree with your take on closed vs. removed above. Oddjob84 (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought I had, but it looks like there was more added than what I remember. Just read it now, but it doesn't seem to have ever reached a consensus on this issue. I'll join in there and leave this section to rot. Elisfkc (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox template modifications for status field

Just an FYI that the infobox templates for attractions and roller coasters have been modified per the result of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 3#Status fields in attraction articles. The status fields should now all resolve to:

Operating
Closed
Under construction
Removed.

I kept all the deprecated parameters in there, such as Testing and Under refurbishment, so that they would be linked to the correct status. Please let me know if you notice any issues with these changes. Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahecht, just remembered that you had these changes queued in your sandbox. If you get a chance, please look these changes over and feel free to suggest further changes. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@GoneIn60:  Done. I could've sworn I'd already made the change ages ago. Now "open" and "operating" map to Operating; "defunct", "closed", "sbno", and "standing but not operating" map to Closed; "under refurbishment", "technical rehearsals", "undergoing testing", and "under construction" map to Under construction; "removed", "demolished", and anything beginning with "relocated" or "in storage" map to Removed; "planned" and "announced" get passed through but added to Category:Attraction articles with announced status, and anything else gets passed through and added to Category:Attraction articles with custom statuses. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Ahecht, I had already made most of those changes with this edit. One thing that's missing in your changes is "testing" which should map to Under construction. Also, I thought the idea was to prevent the use of Announced/Planned and other custom statuses. I think we can disregard the two categories you listed above, as anything outside of what we've defined goes against the RfC. Is there a way to only allow the status field to appear when a defined parameter is specified? If not, then we should keep the passthrough to custom statuses category, so that we can periodically go through those articles and clean them up. Right now, there are 84 articles showing there. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Also just noticed that when the multiple location template is used, Relocated is no longer a valid status. I believe in the RfC, we discussed leaving that alone for now and possibly discussing that template in a separate thread, but now all of those articles show Removed. Thought I'd mention it in case there's an easy fix. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@GoneIn60: I added "testing" -- that was an oversight. The template was always set up so that it passed through unrecognized values, and the modified template does the same. My instinct was to leave the current values as "better than nothing" until we've had a chance to clean up the two maintenance categories (we may have to manually run a script to purge or null edit all instances of the template to get everything to initially update). I created a separate category for announced/planned rides, since that was a previously accepted value that is now unrecognized, and it will allow us to more easily go through those articles and clean them up (especially since most of those rides may now be open and just not updated). Again, once we've cleaned up the existing articles, we can blank that as well.
As to the second point, the same sub-template is used for all locations, so it will take a little bit more work since we have to modify the attraction, roller coaster, and water ride templates, but I can work up a draft that takes it into account. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. I figured it would take some tinkering to get it just right, and we're definitely making progress! A lot of articles using the Infobox roller coaster extend template have "Relocated to <new location>" for their status at old locations, but I think we can redirect them to just show as "Relocated". That will work in most situations, except maybe where there are multiple installations of a given coaster, and one was relocated but the others weren't. Knowing where it was relocated to would be a plus, but that may be more work than its worth. The article's prose should properly mention this in more detail. Thought I'd mention it though, as it's sure to come up in conversation at some point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and modified the template so that it will pass through any comment beginning with "relocated" or "moved to" unmodified if it's not the first location. That can easily be changed now if we want to standardize it as just "Relocated", but that would probably need another RFC since the previous one excluded that. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting that. I checked a few articles, and that seems to have reverted them back to their original state. Is there any way to keep "Relocated to..." from causing the article to show up under the custom statuses category? Just a minor inconvenience, so no biggie if that's not possible. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Disregard that. I made a minor change to one that was showing up in the list and then it was removed from the custom category. May just take some time for those to drop off. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting statuses

@GoneIn60 and Ahecht: GoneIn60: thanks for the note on my talk page. The three of us have been passing each other for a while, and as we have some overlapping interests, we should agree on this and (probably) other issues. If my observations are correct, both you and Ahecht are more coaster guys than not. My expertise is themed entertainment, theme parks, and live shows, with almost no interest in coasters (sorry). To begin the discussion, I am reproducing a note I left for Alyssa Nutter when she was still an IP. This was on the Talk page of Pirates 4-D, and is a bit of a summary of my thinking on this issue as it applies to movies (Pirates 4-D) and special events (Six Flags Fright Fest).

We may have a bit of a semantics problem. It probably stems from the fact that the Infobox/Attractions was really more intended for physical entities, for example, roller coasters. An example: Six Flags New Orleans, after being demolished by Katrina, is still standing. A couple of its coasters were salvaged by Six Flags, and moved to other parks. That is "removed". The remaining coasters, too badly corroded to save, are still standing, so strictly speaking, they are not "removed", but "closed". The article Pirates 4-D is about a film. Films, being somewhat of an intangible entity, "close" but are not "removed". True, 4-D films require a specially-built theater, which could be removed. Take the Luxor for example. We know Pirates closed there. However, I do not find any replacement; it appears they removed the entire installation. That would be a good case for "removed". Now take Thorpe Park. Pirates closed there, and the theater stood empty for a while, but they have since opened a new 4-D film. This sounds like a case of "closed", and then populate the "replaced" field in the infobox. Another pretty clear one is Sea World Ohio. Pirates closed when the park was sold to Six Flags in 2001. The 4-D theater was subsequently demolished. Sounds like "removed". To my knowledge, the other venues are all still standing, with new films in them, making "closed" more accurate. Aside from the semantics, there still exists the pivotal problem, "prove it". While I know much of what I said is true, in many cases, citations are lacking. I can't even find the date Pirates actually closed at Luxor. Discussion? Oddjob84 (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC) [Note] Alyssa changed four venues to "removed"; besides being unsourced, 3 of the 4 are still standing, two with replacement films running.

In reading your prior discussion, my take on it seems mostly in line with yours. What do you think? Oddjob84 (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Oddjob84 and GoneIn60: I've been thinking for a while about what to do with the closed/removed status for shows, especially as the back-and-forth between Myk Streja and 69.47.136.111 fills up my watchlist. When is a show considered "removed", especially if it is a seasonal show? If the show doesn't have a dedicated venue (such as a parade), would it technically be removed every time it ends? Should "on hiatus" be a legitimate status, or is it WP:NOTNEWS (it's certainly better than "under construction")? I'm starting to lean towards the idea of having a separate {{infobox amusement show}} template with no status parameter, just "premiered" and "last shown" dates ala {{infobox television}} ("last shown" is set to "present" unless the show hasn't been presented in over a year, and it is updated if the show comes back from hiatus). This template would cover stage shows, stationary film-based attractions, parades, "nighttime spectaculars", special events, festivals, etc. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ahecht: I didn't realize that there was a crew already dedicated to the protection of those pages. I apologize for adding to your workload. Unless I'm told it's safe to go back to it, I'll stay out of the way. — Myk Streja (who?) 21:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Myk Streja: Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were doing anything wrong. Feel free to correct stuff as you see fit. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ahecht: Oh, NOW you done it. Giving me pemission to do as a I please? <rubbing hands together vigorously> So, where did I leave those forceps... <loud metallic clattering ensues> — Myk Streja (who?) 02:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@GoneIn60 and Ahecht: Personally, I favor the KISS principle when it comes to this. The fewer changes to the infobox, the better. For that reason, I would favor the present box, with a few rules. For example, Six Flags Fright Fest could certainly stay "open" all year, I think users quickly get the idea it only runs at Halloween. Theme park shows usually run until they die; Waterworld has been operating since 1995. Some of the Batman shows at Six Flags parks ran for four months, but then came back for 3~5 years each summer. We could note in the article that they run seasonally. Mardi Gras at Universal Florida, essentially a parade, runs about 6 weeks in the spring. The Main Street Electrical Parade ran every day for 24 years. "Dynamite Nights" ran nightly for 12 years at USF. The Epcot International Food & Wine Festival is still running every fall. The ephemeral events, such as films, shows not in purpose-built theaters, and festivals would probably close eventually, but would almost never be removed (possible exception: see Luxor/Pirates 4-D example above). Purpose-built attractions might or might not be removed. The Miami Vice Stunt Show at USH was physically removed to make way for Waterworld, but Waterworld was built in the same hole in the ground. You could make a case for either "removed" or "closed and replaced by". In any case I don't think we should be overly influenced by 69.47.136.111 / Alyssa Nutter, who is the same person, an outlier, and clearly determined to follow her own rules. Oddjob84 (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with a lot of the points being made here, but the best way forward is usually following WP:COMMONSENSE, which is what we'd expect new or inexperienced editors to naturally do when they may not be aware of the rules outlined in policies, guidelines, style manuals, or WikiProject discussions. The closer we can conform to using common sense, the less we'll have to police these articles. The first discussion we had surrounding infobox statuses, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 3#Status fields in attraction articles, shared the same goal of simplifying things. We've weeded out "under refurbishment" and "SBNO", and we've setup category flags that help us track when an amusement park article is using a custom status. It may not be perfect yet, but we've made some progress.
With that said, here's my take. When a show or parade is no longer on display, and the article topic is solely focused on that show or parade, then to me "Removed" still applies. A film or theme can be removed from its venue, even when the venue remains. Parades are a little trickier in that sense. When they commonly go on on hiatus for short periods of time, it wouldn't be very Wikipedian per WP:NOTGUIDE to constantly track their current status. We could either develop another infobox template as Ahecht suggests that doesn't contain a status (and uses dates for "Premiered", "Last shown" and "Retired"), or we can continue using the same template and just leave the status field blank. A third way forward here is to accept that "Removed" can still apply to a live show or parade. I can get behind any of those three, but further tweaking the statuses we have now in the current infoboxes would seem like a last resort. I'm open to other suggestions, however. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that in Oddjob84's Waterworld example above, it isn't all that different from say dark ride attractions that get revamped and rethemed over the years. Take Phantom Theater, Scooby-Doo and the Haunted Castle, and Boo Blasters on Boo Hill at Kings Island as another example. All three shared the same physical structure and Omnimover track system, but the retired themes are classified as "Removed". That's because their respective articles are about the theme itself and not so much the physical venue in which they reside. I would imagine this would apply to many of the shows, live entertainment, and parade articles as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Elisfkc, FirstDrop87, Adog104, Astros4477, McDoobAU93, Euphoria42 and Iblamefish who are some of the project's more active editors and participated in the last RfC.
While I don't favor a dedicated infobox for shows/movies/events, I can see where it makes good sense from a process standpoint. If that's the consensus, I'm on board. As to the closed/removed discussion, I think we are headed toward making it less understandable. If making it transparent to a new user is the goal, then consider this: in everyday English usage, no one would ever refer to a show or movie or special event as "removed". This term would be an imposed, specific bit of jargon on Wikipedia. I really think it obfuscates rather than illuminates. I favor the closed/replaced model. Lastly, seasonal events which can be expected to recur at least yearly, should be left in "open" status. Why make a bunch of additional work for ourselves? Oddjob84 (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
First to address your last comment about seasonal events, you are absolutely correct. The way most of us approach these articles now is to leave the status as "Operating" when an attraction is running on its normal operating schedule. So for example, take the seasonal amusement park Cedar Point. We don't change all the attraction articles to "Closed" when the park closes in the winter. We also don't change it to "Closed" for short-term maintenance closures that may only last days or weeks. They remain set to "Operating". A seasonal event shouldn't be treated any different. Unfortunately, there's no way to avoid drive-by editors that treat Wikipedia as a park guide or forum, who want up-to-the-minute status changes. I already spend way too much time undoing a lot of those drive-by edits. At least for roller coasters, we have RCDB we can reference in our reverts. That site uses the same methodology and only changes the status during long, drawn-out closures. Unfortunately, it's a tougher battle with other types of attractions.
As for closed/removed, I completely understand. That confusion is out there and it's what led to this discussion. "Removed" isn't the first thought that comes to mind either, but if I saw the status in an article, I'm not sure I'd question it in all situations. When an attraction is no longer at the amusement park or venue it existed in, I can understand that it's been removed. If we can't agree on that, then yes, a separate infobox that uses different statuses or no status at all is the best compromise. Also, I would be in no hurry to correct editors using "Closed" in the present infobox. To me, it's a minor detail changing it to "Removed"; there's little or no harm in leaving it as "Closed" in the short term. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
By the way, if I'm being completely honest, neither "Closed" or "Removed" would be the first status that comes to mind for shows/movies/parades/events. "Inactive" or "Retired" would be, with my choice between the two hinging on whether or not the attraction is permanently gone. Closed/Removed works to a certain extent, but Inactive/Retired makes a little more sense. Then again, we should still be aware of introducing too much WP:CREEP in our approach. Generating another infobox template might infringe upon that concept. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Of our four attraction statuses, none of them would be my first choice to apply to shows. That is why I'm in favor of just putting the dates out there and letting people do the math themselves. It's what Wikipedia does with TV shows and radio shows. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I do like "operating" for open. Between closed/removed and inactive/retired, I like the latter. The trouble with just using dates is that in researching shows/special events/etc. closing dates are hell to find. I have looked everywhere for a close date for Pirates 4-D at Luxor. Nothing. I don't think the theater even exists anymore, but there is nothing out there to prove it. "What happens in Vegas...." Oddjob84 (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Just finished reading this after starting my own version of this lower down (thanks to Oddjob84 for pointing out that this section had grown and encompassed this issue). As I said there, in my opinion, if the structure containing the ride/show is destroyed following that ride/show's closure, it is removed. As for coasters, if the majority of it's track has been torn down, it is removed. Otherwise, I would say it is closed (honestly, I don't see the need for the removed status, but that's something we seem to have reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 3#Status fields in attraction articles and I respect that). I also fully agree that it is easier to just keep something listed as open when it closes due to seasonal operation or under refurbishment, because it let's everyone focus on other things than constantly changing statuses.

As for the question on shows, it would be kind of nice to have another template for that since it can be hard to adapt a show into the attraction template. However, we would need to know where to draw the line what is a show and what is a ride, especially when covering stuff that is in between a standard show (such as Festival of the Lion King and For the First Time in Forever: A Frozen Sing-Along Celebration) and a standard ride (such as The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror and It's a Small World). Examples of these in between experiences (trying to avoid attraction or show right now) and hybrids include Circle-Vision 360° movies, Carousel of Progress, MuppetVision 3D, The American Adventure, Poseidon's Fury, and T2 3-D: Battle Across Time. Personally, I would draw the line at continuous operation. That is to say that things that run on throughout the day without scheduled times are rides/attractions, and those that have stated start times are shows. Elisfkc (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Elisfkc, I understand your frustration with the "Removed" status. Terms like closed and inactive tend to imply an indefinite amount of time that could be temporary. Other terms like demolished, defunct, and removed imply permanent closure. Years ago, there was no rhyme or reason as to which one was specified. Before the recent RfC, long-time veterans of this project merged some of these statuses together to make it less confusing, but it still had issues. As Ahecht points out in that section below, we had to find a way to deal with the removal of SBNO, and we chose the term that had the closest fit, '"Closed". This is still a confusing change, because for the longest time, "Closed" meant permanent closure within our project. But in common language, it doesn't always mean permanent. While a better solution probably exists, I'd still have to say we are in a better position with closed/removed than we were with SBNO/closed.
For shows, events, and parades, I don't think "Open" or "Operating" are the best descriptors. If we are going to create a new infobox template and we agree somewhat on "Inactive" and "Retired", then I would suggest "Active" as the only other status. While I still think a new template is certainly an option, I still caution that the more templates we have, the more complex this gets. I just checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Templates, and it appears we have 8 main templates and 1 sub-template. And actually, {{Infobox recurring event}} already exists for events. Interestingly, it already uses Active, Inactive, and Defunct for its statuses. Perhaps we can just adapt this one to apply to shows and parades as well, and then spend some time tweaking its parameters. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@GoneIn60: You seemed to have missed my question/inquiry. When does closed become removed? I am looking for the answer to this. Like I said before, in my opinion, if the structure containing the ride/show is destroyed following that ride/show's closure, it is removed. As for coasters, if the majority of it's track has been torn down, it is removed. Otherwise, I would say it is closed. Elisfkc (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, take one of my examples from above, Phantom Theatre. The structure was never torn down, yet we refer to the ride as removed. There is no option to say replaced, so removed is the best fit. I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all approach. It depends on how the article is written and what its main focus is. Use your best judgement. Personally, if an attraction is in the process of being removed, I would leave it as closed until the demolition or removal is complete. In the rare circumstances when part of the ride remains indefinitely (like a footer from a roller coaster or a building from a ride), eventually we'd want to refer to it as removed. Another good example that comes to mind is The Crypt at Kings Island. That ride is long gone, but the park still uses the building during Halloween Haunt and probably for storage. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Quick Consensus

I'm working on Haunted attraction (simulated). Does it need an infobox, and if so which one? None of the attractions boxes seem appropriate. Oddjob84 (talk) 02:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Oddjob84; Personally, I don't think that article needs an infobox since its about a variety of types of haunted houses and not specific types or design of one. Since the topic is general, I think it would be best to provide an image where the infobox would be of a haunted attraction as an example. (Also small note and nothing rude, please check WP:WBA as some of the history section seems to be written like an essay and may need to be in an encyclopedic tone) :) Adog104 Talk to me 02:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Oddjob84 I agree with Adog104. Really, what information would you put in an infobox about such a broad spectrum topic? There's no way to "billboard" it. Graphics, perhaps, as an example of each of the subtopics under "Types of haunted attractions". And they will have to be very specific images; general "promotional" images ain't gonna cut it. None would be better than mediocre. They could break the article. Maybe an editor with an interest in haunted attractions and a camera might help out here. <wink, wink, nudge, nudge>  — Myk Streja (what?) 15:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Afd

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pixar Pier. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Theme park attractions use of Italics

Hey, I was trying to find what the MoS was about whether theme park attractions should use Italics or not, but couldn't find it on this project or MOS:ITALICTITLE. Is there a consensus on how this should be? To me it seems like it falls under the Major work category and is very similar to the Named exhibitions criteria. --Gonnym (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I share the same confusion with Gonnym as some articles in our project, such as Sheikra or Falcon's Fury are not italicized, but others such as Manta and Kraken are. I think they shouldn't be italicized based off what MOS:italictitle has to say but I think there should be consensus and more comments on this. Adog104 Talk to me 19:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The most recent discussion is here, but there have been others as well. The overall consensus within the WikiProject has generally been to avoid italics for roller coasters. Besides the manual of style guides mentioned in past discussions, most reliable sources do not italicize them either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Funny enough that the example in that conversation is currently in italics. Back to the issue though, there are three points in the MoS that make me believe that theme park attractions should be in italics:
  • "Named exhibitions (artistic, historical, scientific, educational, cultural, literary, etc. – generally hosted by, or part of, an existing institution such as a museum or gallery), but not large-scale exhibition events or individual exhibits" - so exhibitions in a park should be, for example: Marvel Cinematic Universe#Live attractions: Avengers S.T.A.T.I.O.N
  • "Paintings, sculptures and other works of visual art with a title rather than a name" - would seem that a ride is more a work of visual art than it is a building.
  • "Named oratorios, cantatas, motets, orchestral works, and other compositions beyond the scope of a single song or dance" - Star Wars: A Galactic Spectacular would fall under something like this --Gonnym (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Certain types of attractions may very well fall into what some Manual of Style guides deem italics as necessary, however, I do not believe this applies to roller coasters and amusement rides. Also, we should keep in mind that exhibitions referenced above typically refers to when items (usually artistic in nature) are on display in a gallery-type venue. As long as that's the case, I would support italics. The examples you gave represent exceptions that warrant italics. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

About references and sources

I've been trying to create articles relating to roller coasters more recently and trying to improve Mako among others amusement ride articles. More recently, I've been coming to small conclusions that some information found in detail among Good Articles and Featured Articles are found on websites that are less publicly known and reported (for instance, on SheiKra it sources "BGT Guide" and "Thrill Network" among those of other major outlets). To the point, my question is: what kind of websites are applicable to be used in roller coaster articles? Do they have to be well-known and referenced websites from mainstream media such as RCDB or Screamscape? Or can they be from lesser-known media in the industry, such as those who give a review about a roller coaster or may provide details as to the construction/making of it? (I've read WP:V about blogs and such but I feel like I need more verification about what I should and shouldn't use among what sources are okay or not) Adog104 Talk to me 23:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Typically, a source is deemed reliable if the author is a recognized expert within the industry (i.e. recognized by a mainstream publication), or if the publisher of the author's work is accepted as reliable. Many blogs and fan websites do not qualify per WP:USERGENERATED and WP:SPS. There was a recent RSN discussion you can read through in which the consensus agreed that greatadventurehistory.com, for example, was not reliable for similar reasons. Generally, RCDB.com is considered a reliable source, but I would strongly hesitate citing Screamscape. Information there is quickly removed over time, and often, they report on unconfirmed rumors. The only time I generally accept that source is if it's complemented by a reputable publication, such as a newspaper or magazine. If you're not sure, you can always start a discussion at WP:RSN and post a link on this page informing the project to weigh in. Hope that helps! --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
GoneIn60; It most certainly does, thank you! :D Adog104 Talk to me 02:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested Move for The Racer (Kings Island)

Please weigh in at Talk:The Racer (Kings Island)#Requested move 3 August 2017. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Water parks and water rides

Four water parks have been removed from List of amusement parks in Greater Orlando with the edit summaries "Volcano Bay isnt an amusement park lol" and "more water parks removed". Should this be reverted? (If so, please go ahead - thanks.) 82.132.218.85 (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Water rides are now being removed from List of amusement rides. Should Category:Water rides be excluded from Category:Amusement rides? 82.132.242.204 (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I would say that they should be removed. They are kind of a sub-category of amusement rides, but at the same time, something pretty different. --Elisfkc (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
In term, I would agree for what I remarked about the water park slides, since they're technically not amusement park attractions rather mainly water rides (like Elisfkc said a sub-category). Technically water parks are generally a sub-category or equal to an amusement park status depending on their marketing or ownership (from my opinion, not from any direct source material). Although Volcano Bay seems to be a separate entity from its sister amusements parks, and therefore I would say it is as such. Adog104 Talk to me 18:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of certain "amusement rides"

Hello, I have removed some articles that I fimly believe do not belong in List of amusement rides. If you want to review the current list and spot any other articles that don't belong there, please go ahead. I have removed: AquaLoop (water slide), Backyard railroad (not even rideable), Chairlift (form of transportation), Fishpipe (water activity), FlowRider (sport/water sport), Lazy river (usually found at water parks and not amusement parks lol), Russian Mountains (not sure what this is), Water slide (speaks for itself) and Wind Seeker (article is about Cedar Fair WindSeekers). @Adog104:, you had a few problems with some of these, so if you want to share your opinion, I'm tagging you in this conversation. Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye75; Let's go through the list I guess since there wasn't much conversation from a third opinion, so Yes, No (Backyard railroad's are ride-able, and are a form of amusement attraction: Example), Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes (although water parks can be classified as standalone amusement parks), No (since Russian Mountains are a form of amusement attractions that preceded the actual roller coaster), Yes, Maybe (since its an amusement attraction, but debatable I guess due to its specific locations). Sorry about earlier also, I thought with us both being heated I thought I should have taken a break which ended in my computer breaking anyways and now I have to focus on other things off-wiki which you can find out in my talk page. Adog104 Talk to me 00:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

List of amusement rides

Would anyone care to weigh in here? Please see also the two preceeding edits. Thanks. 82.132.224.129 (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Weighed in, and ruled in. Adog104 Talk to me 10:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
"Weighed in, and rule in."? It seems like that's a signal of ownership qualities. From that phrase alone, it seems like you want the final edit. I didn't see any effort to explain your decision and you could of at least tagged me, so we could have a discussion instead of making your own changes. Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hawkeye75; Didn't I just respond on my talk page a few hours ago exactly explaining on what you had said about the revert where I even pinged you? Also that's quite the accusation considering I had only edited that page twice recently, one edit being a revert per a remark you had made explained on my talk page and one per a mistake I made that I mentioned on my talk page. I'm going to say again this wasn't in my intentions to be rude, and to please be calm. Adog104 Talk to me 01:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Consensus

To be clear, and also because of this now, I would like to invite other editors in this project and outside to speak on the subject of amusement rides and what constitutes one and what doesn't. Since now looking between Hawkeye75 and I, there clearly will not be a consensus if slight comments are going to be [made] between us. Adog104 Talk to me 02:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

See below. Adog104 Talk to me 01:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Changing the 'Hypercoaster' wiki drastically

Hi everyone,
I started this Wikipedia account a few days ago with the intentions changing and correcting Wikipedia pages about the amusement branche. I was looking at the Dutch 'Mega Coaster' Wikipage and saw that a lot of things were very, very wrong. I was looking at the English Wikipage about Mega Coasters and this one was contradictory too. Me and a other Dutch speaking Wikipedia author are on a mission correcting these pages drastically and right. I will explain the following in paragraphs numbered 1 till 4:

1. Mistakes Dutch Wikipage 2. Mistakes English Wikipage 3. The starting process 4. Exchanging information

Mistakes Dutch Wikipage
The mistakes made on the Dutch wikipage were too bad. Really. The page told us a Mega Coaster is counted in 3 groups: Mega, Hyper and Giga. What's wrong about these is that 1st Mega a model name is from Intamin AG[1] and Mack Rides[2], second Hyper[3] being the model of B&M, Arrow Dynamics[4] and Mack Rides[5] (larger than the Mack Megacoaster) and Giga[6] being a model from Intamin. All hypercoasters from B&M having the minimal height of a Giga aren't actually a Giga, but still a Hyper. Heights: Intamin Mega Coaster 45 meters (148ft) till 90 meters (295ft) Intamin Giga Coaster 90 meters (295ft) till 120 meters (394ft) B&M Hyper Coaster 50 meters (164ft) no max.

This are the 'approximate' heights of the models and the other companies are using these heights too. With some information from RCDB we will get to it.

Mistakes English Wikipage
The English Wikipage was to be honest a well advanced Wikipage with correct information, but with common mistakes like parting B&Ms and Arrows into Giga's while it's just a model name, where they don't belong to. Read previous paragraph for further information.

The starting process
The starting process is probably the most difficult time for a Wikipage. Common things like "Oh, I forgot about that" "I did not have enough time to involve in any of these Wikis..." etc. When we make a deal, we talk furthermore.

Exchanging information
Information can be found on RCDB, for European coasters we are available for questions, if we are able to ask about non-European coaster to you.

I hope to hear from you soon,

Kind Regards
--Rc030 (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC) (thanks Adog104 for linking this community)

References

  1. ^ https://rcdb.com/8374.htm
  2. ^ https://mack-rides.com/products/rollercoaster/mega-coaster
  3. ^ http://www.bolliger-mabillard.com/product/hyper-coaster
  4. ^ https://rcdb.com/8296.htm
  5. ^ https://rcdb.com/14441.htm
  6. ^ https://rcdb.com/8375.htm
Appreciate your thoughts on the matter, but I'm not quite sure what is being asked. Perhaps you should start by linking to the articles you have interest in, such as hypercoaster. Your comments above don't mention what articles are involved and aren't clear on what changes need to be made. One thing to keep in mind is that there is the model from Intamin, Giga Coaster, and the height classification known in the industry as giga coaster. So while the manufacturer may or may not recognize the term when naming their models, that doesn't change how the industry has defined them. Reliable sources other than RCDB, such as newspapers, magazines, books, etc., have published information that support the height classification and ignore the model names. So if your goal is to only go by the model name, then your efforts will likely meet some resistance.
But before we assume what those efforts are, please take some time to lay out specific examples of what you want to change. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata and RCDB on multi-location coasters/Migrating RCDB numbers to Wikidata

I've been adding information to a lot of wikidata items recently. I am wondering what the best way to deal with multi-location coasters is (like Rock 'n' Roller Coaster Starring Aerosmith, where there is one in Florida and one in France). Specifically, I am trying to migrate RCDB numbers to Wikidata and then have the infobox template call that number from Wikidata. This would mean that we don't need to actually have the RCDB number on the article itself, but just on the Wikidata page, similar to coordinates and official websites (also, this makes it easier for other language projects to call the RCDB number). However, I noticed that even though {{Infobox roller coaster}} has an option for multi-location coasters, we don't seem to support the RCDB number for these extra locations. Can we figure out a solution to support these multi-location coasters? --Elisfkc (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying it would pull from Wikidata if the parameter in the article is empty? That would be the preferred scenario as opposed to removing the parameter from the article altogether. While Wikidata can be useful to fill in missing information, I don't believe it should be relied upon as a full-out replacement. That's just an additional location that would need to be maintained and wouldn't be clear to most Wikipedia editors, especially new ones. I prefer to set and update the RCDB number as needed directly in the article, but I can appreciate having Wikidata as a backup just in case the parameter isn't filled in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, still trying to figure it all out, bug wise. Right now, {{RCDB}} is pulling it on Expedition Everest but doesn't seem to pull it from Wikidata elsewhere. However, both templates are running if statements that sort articles into Category:Articles needing RCDB numbers and Category:Articles needing their RCDB number moved to Wikidata as needed. As for the multi-location {{Infobox roller coaster}}, I see now that there is already a solution (after looking at Seven Dwarfs Mine Train). --Elisfkc (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Amusement_Parks

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 13:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Disneyland Resort Line#Requested move 6 January 2018, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Your opinion and rationale are needed so a decision can be made. Thank you and Happy New Year to All!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there anything that should be done about an article fpr an amusement park that probably won't be built?

It's Sahara Kingdom. It looks as though plans for it have been abandoned. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller: Considering it lacks secondary sources and is written like an advertisement, the stub should be deleted. I've started an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahara Kingdom. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

New articles for the 2018 season

It's that time of year again. A lot of very bad, early information makes its way into new articles. For coasters, you can see some of the new ones here: Category:Roller coasters introduced in 2018.

I've started on Wicker Man (roller coaster) but could use some help on this one and others if anyone has the time (even if you just want to copyedit, add sources, check specs, etc). Thanks in advance! --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Wicker Man

There is a discussion brewing at Talk:Wicker Man (roller coaster)#Intro regarding what should and shouldn't be covered in the lead of a roller coaster article. Additional opinions would be appreciated. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Big Loop

I created a draft for the roller coaster Draft:Big_Loop in Heide Park, as requested here. It was declined due to lack of significance. What can I do to improve it? Trex2001 (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The main reason it was denied has to do with a lack of cited references. Look at The Beast (roller coaster) as an example of a well-cited article. I would say at minimum, Big Loop would need at least 3 or 4 solid references, publications that cover the roller coaster's construction, introduction/opening, reception, incidents/accidents, and/or any other important aspect you come across. I've discovered that finding sources for roller coasters outside of the US and UK is tough to do. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

List of enclosed roller coasters

FYI that this list is being considered for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of enclosed roller coasters. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Copperhead Strike

Please weigh in on this article's deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copperhead Strike. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Rollercoaster articles up for deletion

These roller coasters are up for deletion. Please comment on them at the relevant deletion page. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Warner Task Force Proposal

I am proposing the creation of a Warner task force. The co-founder of Warner Bros., Jack L. Warner has attained featured article status, indicating that there is a fairly substantial degree of dedication of editors to expanding and improving Warner articles.

The work to be done includes greatly expanding many of those non-main articles that are either stubs or outdated. Many articles can also be created on notable matters and events. I am also creating a proposal on WikiProject/Task Forces. Please indicate potential interest in joining this proposed task force. Chrisisreed (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Template up for discussion

There is a discussion at TFD regarding {{infobox themed area}} and a potential merger with {{infobox amusement park}}. Please feel free to join in the conversation. Primefac (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Inquiry on correctness

I've been looking to get the Cobra's Curse article up and running to possible WP:GA in the near future, but I've gotten a minor snag that I want someone to possibly address because it's bothering me. Reliable sources about the ride, which are quite minimal for its construction starting, state construction initiated in January 2015 Tampa Bay Times & Tampa Bay Online, though a USF newspaper report says it started in March 2015 The Oracle. Though I would say The Oracle is wrong because of confirmation bias towards more reliable sources, I did dig upon a Screamscape archive where permits were filed to the Water Management Information System about the area's construction, which were received in February 2015, and further posts on Screamscape speculate upon the idea of a 2016 attraction happen earlier in 2014. Though from what I understand, Screamscape isn't a reliable source because of its speculative nature, and neither are its external links to personal blogs, but it does seem to better fit the idea that construction started in March 2015 because of the permits that would be needed to be filed beforehand instead of January 2015. Thoughts? Furthermore, could Screamscape be even considered to be a reference where its material is true about what enthusiasts have found? Adog (Talk・Cont) 06:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Question answered through inquiry. Adog (Talk・Cont) 21:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of a Midway Mayhem video on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion of "Busch Gardens Tampa Cobra's Curse Construction Update 2.17.16 POV TOUR, TRAIN REVEAL, INTERVIEWS!", a 2016 video published by Midway Mayhem, on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Midway Mayhem. — Newslinger talk 03:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed page move Six Flags AstroWorld -> AstroWorld

There is a discussion taking place concerning this page move at Talk:Six Flags AstroWorld. If you have anything to contribute, please add to the discussion.—JlACEer (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The Great Escape, proposed merger, and potential page rename

There is discussion taking place concerning a merger of these two pages: Six Flags Great Escape Lodge & Indoor Waterpark and Six Flags Great Escape Theme Park & Lodge. If you have any thoughts on the subject please add to the discussion on the talk pages of either page.—JlACEer (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Resource proposal

Hello WikiProject Amusement Parks,

Through my endeavor on researching amusement parks, specifically content based around roller coasters, I've come across different sources that seem to be reliable to cover about the subject; which is generally by enthusiasts who have personally worked with or claim to work with theme parks and published by reliable sources. However, they're questionable when compared to our policies on WP:RS or WP:V. Is there a way in which we could incorporate a list, such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, where sources can be judged by their reliability and be listed on the WikiProject page so user's know what is and what isn't reliable in use? Adog (Talk・Cont) 19:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Adog: If you believe there are sources which are being frequently challenged for reliability but shouldn't be, then yes, perhaps having a list on the WikiProject page would be helpful. What sources specifically do you have in mind? The proper venue to discuss reliability is still WP:RSN, but once they are deemed reliable there, we could start building a list here if needed. Trying to understand the scope at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Amusement parks

Portal:Amusement parks, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Amusement parks and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Amusement parks during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The portal has been nominated for deletion once again at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Amusement parks (2nd nomination). Certes (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Amusement_Parks/Archive_3&oldid=1137395398"