Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 4

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

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested Article

One of the requested articles had been done. I think that it need to be removed from the list. Wynn Liaw (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Article up for deletion

Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stark's Test I.A Coaster. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox roller coaster discussion

There is a discussion taking place concerning the designer parameter on this page: Template talk:Infobox roller coaster. If you have anything to contribute, please add to the discussion.—JlACEer (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Bringing this thread back. For anyone interested in discussing possible changes to the Infobox roller coaster template, now's the time to weigh in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Coordinates for defunct and relocated roller coasters

For anyone that's interested in weighing in, there's a discussion happening at Talk:Viper (Six Flags AstroWorld)#Coordinates that focuses on both the inclusion of coordinates and level of precision. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Content dispute at Rock 'n' Roller Coaster

There are two discussions in which you may be interested in:

Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

All roller coaster infoboxes now have GPS coordinates

I've just finished clearing out the 128 article backlog at [1]. Leijurv (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That's great news, thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Refurbishment Infobox

When a ride is under-going a massive refurbishment, say Pirates of the Caribbean in 2006, should someone classify it in the infobox as Closed, Operating, or Under Construction. The argument is currently going on in Spaceship Earth (Epcot) (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(Oinkers42): The stance is that Wikipedia is not a travel or park guide, so the status in the infobox should represent a long-term outlook. It should not be affected by daily or weekly changes (or even monthly to some editors). For extended refurbishments, we would typically change it back to "Under construction". What classifies as "extended"? It's subjective, but a good case can be made for anything lasting more than a few months. For Spaceship Earth, it looks like the refurbishment was placed on hold indefinitely according to this source. So that kind of makes this a moot point for that specific article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Drop the Dip year closed

Drop the Dip has the category of Category:Amusement rides that closed in 2020 due to an error with the template, can someone fix it as I do not know how?(Oinkers42) (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

(Oinkers42): Think I got it fixed with this edit. There is an auto-categorization feature built into the roller coaster template that attempts to attach categories based on numerical entries. By inserting text, it switches that off, although I'm not sure why the "s" on the end of "1930s" didn't do that already.
Ahecht, any ideas why this is happening? --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@GoneIn60: The template assigns a year if {{#time}} thinks that the text is a valid date. {{#time}} interprets "1930s" as "1,930 seconds", and returns the year that is 1,930 seconds in the future (i.e. 2020). The best way to make it invalid is by inserting a <nowiki />, e.g. 1930<nowiki />s, which displays as 1930s. You can also disable all auto categorization from the infobox by setting |auto-cat=no. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Great info, thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Should we include documentaries about theme parks?

These include Defunctland and The Imagineering Story. Do they count under this Wikiproject?(Oinkers42) (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Certainly they do because they're theme-park related. Check Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Assessment. Adog (Talk・Cont) 21:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

A bit unfortunate

Due to the circumstances that have forgone today, there are some articles that were moved around. I'm currently attempting to move some broken redirects back to their original format, but can someone explain where the article for Dragon Challenge -- Dueling Dragons went? Missing GA article...hoping that hasn't happened to other articles either. Adog (Talk・Cont) 02:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I would submit a request to fix those articles at WP:RMTR. Hopefully someone there can, or at least point you in the right direction. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
GoneIn60 Will do, thank you. Adog (Talk・Cont) 05:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Inverted Coaster article

Please weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inverted Coaster (B&M model). Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Research inconsistencies

Hello everyone. While doing historical research for Python (Busch Gardens Tampa Bay), I've come across statistical inaccuracies between what newspapers reported during the announcement and opening of the roller coaster, and from what the Roller Coaster DataBase states within its information. What should be done in the event where reliable sources contradict each other? Should we fall back on what they said in the past, per RCDB, or incorporate both types of information into the article? Any advice would be of assistance, thanks Adog (Talk・Cont) 04:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for newspapers to round or approximate when they give statistics, and the further back in time you go, the more they did it. Newspaper articles released around the time of opening are typically considered primary sources and are more prone to error. RCDB is a secondary source and corrects itself over time. When the two conflict, I would tend to side with RCDB, at least when it comes to height, drop length, speed, or track length. List of roller coaster rankings is a featured list that banks on RCDB for most of its sourcing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
A perfect example of what I'm talking about: Boys' Life June 1979. The article lists The Beast's speed at 70 mph, the length at 7400 ft, and the ride duration at 3:40. Virtually every secondary source from the past 2 decades has settled on 64.78 mph (or 65 mph), 7359 ft, and 4:10 respectively. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Perfect, I appreciate the help and context, very informative and will keep note. :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Opinion: Infoboxs for roller coaster and attractions

I recently edited the Pandemonium article, to condense the infobox to just include the general statistics of the roller coasters that share the same similarities. Just like it had been used for infoboxes of attractions such as SkyScreamer and Justice League: Battle for Metropolis. If there is support, then articles such as Batman: The Ride and The Joker (S&S Worldwide) can be edited with a shortened infobox. When removing each individual ride at each individual park in the infobox, it can then be listed in a section called "Installations," like it is with the Pandemonium, SkyScreamer, and Justice League: Battle for Metropolis. With this change it can have these articles across the industry that have multiple rides (of the same) in one article to have a better look. Right now, The Joker (S&S Worldwide) article has both a long infobox and a section called Installations, which is not needed. What are some opinions on this change? --Jpp858 (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I definitely like how the Pandemonium article looks now, and the proposal which can condense the content. It honestly is a clutter to have a long list that spans the entire article, or sometimes, go beyond the article's content. Adog (Talk・Cont) 19:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I tentatively agree with this. As I mentioned here, I try to keep this category empty: [2]; it had ~125 articles when I started. (at the same time, I don't want to step on people's toes if this isn't appreciated - if this is an inconvenience, I can stop doing it). There was also a discussion here. I did edit that Pandemonium page after noticing it was added back to the category: my edit was to add the coordinates of the pictured location. I wonder if there is some way to properly mark coasters with many installations as such, and not just a coaster with no location. I don't know how these automatic categories work, but maybe it could be edited to "Infobox roller coaster OR roller coaster installation tables without coordinates"? What do we think of what I did there; does it make sense to have the coords be inline for the pictured location? Should there be coordinates in the "installations of Pandemonium" table? (I can add this if so, just a copy/paste from the previous revision). I do think that the extra-long infobox isn't practical for coasters like that with many installations, and the table is better from a UI point of view. Leijurv (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback. @Leijurv: I did see your edit on the Pandemonium page, and I believe the coordinates is probably misleading as the infobox is used currently as a general infobox about the similarities of the coaster (but I understand why you used the SFFT location due to the image). If there was a way to mention after or before the coordinates that that it is for the SFFT coaster (to inform the reader), that would probably be at best. But I believe something about individual facts about the individual coasters should be mentioned in the "Installations" section of the article. Would it just be another column in the table? or is there another creative way to put the coordinates in the section. --Jpp858 (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I put in (self-reverted) my idea of how it could be done: see here. This wouldn't be tracked by the Category that I follow, but it still keeps the information. After having made the edit, it looked sorta familiar: I suspect I've seen an article before with coordinates in a table like this, but I can't remember what was for the life of me. Separately to this, I don't know what the solution is to the infobox. :( I'd really hate if the Category was incorrectly filled up with coasters that really do have coordinates, but it's down in a separate table, leaving the infobox empty. Maybe somehow marking the pictured coaster as the "main" one - having the photo, location, and coords up in the title top bar of the article all line up, and additional installations in a table at the bottom? Not sure. Leijurv (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I do like the coordinates in the table. If the article needed coordinates for the page/or on top, I did something like this here, where I just used the first installation coordinates, similar to the first installation external link. But it would then send the article to that category group you had been watching. I did look up on Template:Coord for information and I did see that if you change inline to title, it then send the coordinates at the top of the article only. When I did that, there was then a blank section of the infobox where the coordinates would had been displayed, with the coordinates then at the top of the page. I then looked at this article and saw that the coordinates can put display as "none". I change the pandemonium article to none and it removed it, but then it still sent the page to the category. So I believe this is something that can be fixed here, but that is another animal to take on.--Jpp858 (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I have taken on the animal, and lived to tell the tale! I've added a new parameter called nomissingcoordscategory that does nothing visually, but prevents it from being added to the category. Here is the edit, and here it is applied to Pandemonium. =D Leijurv (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I appreciate you going through the effort in figuring it out. I guess since the coordinates are off the infobox now, but if they need to be displayed, then adding them to the table should solve that. Other than that, thanks.--Jpp858 (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

So I took the initiative to reduce the infobox of Batman: The Ride, per this edit here and I added an Installations section to list the parks that had either had the ride or still currently (just like many other coaster or ride articles mentioned above in this talk page). In the edit, I added the "nomissingcoordscategory" in the infobox, which was an update done by @Leijurv: to allow the coordinates from going to this category. There is no need to mention the Batman coaster at Parque Warner Madrid, as that coaster has its own article here. I moved the "Backward Operations" section to be apart in the history section. The "Backward Operations" section was basically a timeline of the coaster going backwards, that would a best fit in the history section and maybe can be elaborated more about the change of operations. Lastly, I added a note list due to the installation table and a external link section for the article to have a main link to the original ride at Six Flags Great America.

Nice! You may want to update Template:Infobox_roller_coaster#Additional_locations because it uses Batman: The Ride as the poster child for the gargantuan infobox method haha Leijurv (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Did I correctly edit these coordinates?

I am wondering if I have correctly edited the coordinates on these pages that were on the list of pages without coordinates. If so I will go through and try and fix up as many more as I can.

I took already existing coordinates in the infobox and moved them to "Park Coordinates" with the suggested formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technodisney (talk • contribs) 04:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I just realised it needs the themed area infobox. Will try and fix for the three. Technodisney (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

What to do with theme park?

Hi gang; there's a relevant discussion at Talk:Amusement park#Theme park article/redirect. I'd greatly appreciate the input of this project's editors. Powers T 17:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Designer parameter

Just an FYI I modified the description for the parameter field for {{infobox roller coaster}}: diff. Wanted to clarify that the designer field is meant to represent the entity or entities responsible for the engineering design. Some are using this field to list other kinds of entities, like those responsible for theme and other peripheral items unrelated to the ride's physics. Thought I'd mention it here in case anyone has issues with the change, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Ferris Wheel

There is a discussion at Talk:Ferris Wheel#Requested move 26 April 2021 that might be of interest to members of this project. Station1 (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Six Flags AstroWorld

I've made a few recent changes to the Six Flags AstroWorld article, but even just at a glance any editor could tell this article needs a lot of work. There's a ton of unsourced content, overly detailed information about specific rides (even for those which have standalone Wikipedia entries), and lots of subsections which could possibly be merged. If editors care to help out, any improvements are much appreciated! Thanks, --Another Believer (Talk) 13:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Update: The article was nuked and now in the process of being rebuilt. If you're more interested in adding content and making other improvements, as opposed to cleaning up a mess, you're invited to help assist! Good article status is the ultimate goal here. Happy editing, ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't mean to be harsh and while I appreciate the work, I don't think you went about this the right way. You deleted a lot of content that had been added over the years by knowledgeable editors and you deleted several reliable sources by nuking most of the page. You are attempting to rebuild the page by using poorly researched and error-filled newspaper articles from questionable sources. I don't think you know enough about this material to attempt a complete a rewrite. I would have preferred that you left most of the content intact and encouraged editors to search for sources, instead of attempting to rebuild the page. I know you are hoping to achieve good article status, but from what I have seen so far, you don't know enough about AstroWorld's history or the amusement industry in general, and you don't have access to the proper sources, to get this page to good article status.—JlACEer (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
JlACEer, I'm sorry you think I'm unqualified to overhaul the article. I've written 5 Featured articles and 112 Good articles, but we'll set that aside for now. I won't apologize for nuking the page -- it was in terrible shape. I invite you and other editors to help rebuild the page in Wikipedia-compliant ways. I'm most definitely less informed about the park's history and attractions, but that doesn't mean I'm unable to add sourced text and collaborate with editors more familiar with the topic than myself. I appreciate the work you've done to the page and your contributions to talk page discussions. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I invite project members to take another look at the article, which has been expanded further recently. The entry might be close to Good article status, but I welcome those familiar with amusement park article standards to take a look and make final improvements before a possible nomination. Feedback and concerns are welcome on the article's talk page, too. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Update: Two other editors and I have co-nominated Six Flags AstroWorld for Good article status. Final call for improvements! Also, sharing in case a project member wishes to complete the GA review. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Update: The article has been updated to Good article status! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Taking Pictures from inside attractions

A lot of attractions have signs saying, "Don't record or take pictures," but I don't think it is illegal, and even if it is, would it be ok to put here or would it be taken down? Epachamo (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Epachamo: I have not been to a theme park in a while, but I think those signs attest to recording or taking pictures while on the ride. Off-ride photos are okay! Adog (Talk・Cont) 12:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to a theme park this weekend, and thought about taking pictures while on the ride (I need to research legality vs policy). Would it be taken down by editors here? I want to preempt an edit war. Epachamo (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Just noticed your comment here. I would advise against it, but it's difficult to say whether or not it would be acceptable on Wikipedia when the intent and method used by the contributor is known. I'm not sure there is a technical policy or guideline against it, but ethically there are issues. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Also keep in mind that some amusement parks allow enthusiast groups and VIP guests to walk the ride layout before the park opens and/or view the ride from unique vantage points. So it's possible some pictures you see out there are from individuals who were given that kind of backstage access. But even for situations where that isn't the case, I don't see why Wikipedia would reject them. A lot would have to be shown to prove that a picture was taken illegally, and that's really outside the purview of what editors are responsible for on Wikipedia. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I'll just add that as far as amateur video goes, most are not suitable for Wikipedia. Unless it looks professionally captured/edited, most wouldn't qualify for inclusion. Instead, we prefer to link to official video provided by the parks themselves, especially for roller coasters. We want to avoid driving traffic to websites like YouTube, where an individual may benefit and be incentivized to link to it from here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Pending GAN - Warner Bros. Movie World

It would be greatly appreciated if any kind soul could have a look into the pending GAN for Warner Bros. Movie World. It's been sitting patiently in the queue for over four months now and I am hoping to accelerate towards the finish line eventually. If it helps with the process, I can provide access to virtually every offline source used in the article for ref-checking. Will trade for a VelociCoaster fast-pass on opening day (not guaranteed) or quid pro quo for anything you need. Regards! — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@CR4ZE: Looks like someone met your request Talk:Warner Bros. Movie World/GA1. Best of luck! Adog (Talk・Cont) 23:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Adog—the article passed. I have now opened a peer review and would be eternally grateful if any project volunteers could take the time to leave feedback. Lee Vilenski, given you reviewed the GAN, you may be interested in commenting? Thanks everybody. — CR4ZE (T • C) 04:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Would love too, I have mid-terms for university until Wednesday (October 14). Going to take the days off after to edit a bit to loosen my mind. Adog (Talk・Cont) 20:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Your comments would be welcomed but not expected as I know how life is busy for you currently. It's an open invitation for anyone! — CR4ZE (T • C) 23:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The article is now at FAC. Could somebody please give input on the RCDB and TPR refs? They are in contention. Naturally, any other commentary would be welcomed as well. — CR4ZE (T • C) 02:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyone available to give comment? This FAC would really need some input from the project to move forward. Pinging a handful of regulars @Adog, Another Believer, GoneIn60, JlACEer, Jpp858, and Leijurv. Would gladly offer any qpq or contribute to project tasks in return. Thanks! — CR4ZE (T • C) 08:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@CR4ZE: I caught up on personal commitments and can gladly help in the coming days where needed. Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Adog, I'd really appreciate it! Also following up on your Wikimail reply from earlier today: it would probably be worth mentioning in your review that you've previously given two informal assessments of the article (B-class review and peer review). Given that, to my mind there would be no expectation to go as far as some of the other FAC reviewers. I'm happy for you to be as comprehensive as you can. If you've never done a FA review, I suppose the first thing would be to check WIAFA and go from there. Be as fussy or nit-picky about the article as you like: every bit helps. I really do appreciate this and I look forward to your comments. — CR4ZE (T • C) 00:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a heads-up to all that this is now at TFAR in case anyone is interested in commenting. Thanks! — CR4ZE (T • C) 08:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Cedar Point coaster descriptions

Please weigh in at Talk:Cedar Point#Gatekeeper, which may need a second (or even third) opinion to settle the debate. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hybrid coaster discussion

Please weigh in at Talk:Hybrid roller coaster#Contested deletion. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

E.T. Adventure

Just dropping a note here that if anyone has access to reliable sources on E.T. Adventure and Universal Orlando that aren't already cited in the article, please post them here, on the article's talk page, or add them to the article. Seems like there's a lot more to write on the subject which might one day help to get it promoted to WP:GA status. Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Ride tables in amusement park articles

Several editors have commented on the suggestion to move ride charts out of amusement park articles and into a secondary List article dedicated to rides. It is being debated as to whether or not a roller coaster chart should remain in the main article, even when a secondary attractions article exists. Please join the discussion at Talk:Six Flags Over Texas#Fate of coaster chart: Retain or convert to prose.

Pinging active editors listed under participants:

Thanks in advance! --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rock 'n' Roller Coaster Starring Aerosmith#Requested move 7 September 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rock 'n' Roller Coaster Starring Aerosmith#Requested move 7 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Article split of Amusement Today

A discussion about splitting the Amusement Today article needs some additional feedback at Talk:Amusement Today#Splitting the article. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Carowinds page deletion

Did anyone notice that the entire Carowinds page has been deleted?

10:22, December 3, 2021 user:Jimfbleak deleted page Carowinds (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of en.advisor.travel/poi/Carowinds-16188)
"Unambiguous copyright infringement"? The entire page? Seriously?—JlACEer (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Other users have started to post to User talk:Jimfbleak. Please add to the discussion. This page should not have been deleted, particularly without any type of notice or discussion.—JlACEer (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
@JlACEer, I requested that the page be restored because the alleged "infringing" website was actually licensed CC-BY-SA (which is compatible with Wikipedia's terms of use) and because it looks like it was a reverse copyright violation. Unfortunately, it seems like the whole page can't be restored at once because there were so many revisions to the page (Wizardman already tried and was unable to do it). – Epicgenius (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Black Hole

Additional community feedback is needed at Talk:Black Hole (roller coaster)#Lack of proper sourcing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

AfD: Canyon Blaster

Please see WP:Articles for deletion/Canyon Blaster (Six Flags Magic Mountain). --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Ednör – L'Attaque / Serial Thriller

See also: Talk:Six_Flags_AstroWorld § Serial_Thriller_and_Thunder_River_deleted

Was bummed to see Ednör – L'Attaque deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ednör – L'Attaque. I knew this ride as Serial Thriller (Astroworld). Are any project members more familiar with notability criteria for amusement rides able to double check and make sure Wikipedia shouldn't have an entry for this ride? Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

What concerns me is that it was never listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Amusement parks where it might have generated some discussion. I had no idea it was being considered for deletion, and now that it is gone, there is no way to know what information was on that page. It was at least as notable as Thunderhawk (Michigan's Adventure) and could have had a similar page had we been given the chance to improve the article.—JlACEer (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Ditto Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunder River (ride). What a bummer!

@Explicit: I am concerned these deletion discussions are not being seen by this WikiProject. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I deleted all of these pages as WP:SOFTDELETE due to minimal participation, so they can be restored upon request if others plan to work on them or merge the content elsewhere. Courtesy ping to 1234qwer1234qwer4, who initiated these AFDs. ✗plicit 00:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Explicit: What do we need to do to get these pages restored? There are already two discussions ongoing, I don't want to start a third on your talk page. Since there had been no discussion and no one notified any of the editors who had contributed or posted a notice to a location where it might have been seen, I think we have enough reasons for the deletions to be undone. There are plenty of legitimate references to be found and I can work on improving these articles — although not right away.—JlACEer (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@JlACEer: See Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Thunder_River_(ride) ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
And Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Ednör_–_L'Attaque ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

See Thunder River (ride) and Ednör – L'Attaque ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Would anyone be willing to make a list of all the undeleted pages? If they haven't been already, the talk pages should be tagged with {{Old XfD multi}}. ✗plicit 14:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Status field for Amusement Park infoboxes

Question: Should we add "Defunct" to the list of statuses for amusement park infoboxes? Here's how the change would look:

  • Before: Planned, Under construction, Operating, Closed, Removed
  • After: Planned, Under construction, Operating, Closed, Defunct

The last discussion (from way back in 2016): WT:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 3#Status fields in attraction articles.

The result of that discussion only seemed to cover attractions and not specifically amusement parks. Since an amusement park can be abandoned for years or even decades, "Defunct" would be a good placeholder in place of "Closed", which in past discussions can be interpreted as temporary and not permanent. If you type "Defunct" into the status field now, it automatically resolves to "Removed". That doesn't fit for abandoned parks with remnants still standing (e.g. Six Flags New Orleans, LeSourdsville Lake Amusement Park). "Defunct" would cover both "Removed" and "Permanently closed".

Anyone oppose or other thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • In favor. Sounds like a good solution.—JlACEer (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • We hadn't been tracking these on the Amusement Park infobox because there was only consensus to limit statuses on the attraction templates. For this discussion I created categories for the various statuses, so we can see how they're currently being used: Category:Amusement parks by status. Of particular note are the pages in Category:Amusement park articles with custom statuses ( 3 ), which don't use one of the values that the template recognizes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahecht (talk • contribs) 19:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for providing a way to track those. We can look into the outliers like we did last time around with attractions. Shouldn't be an issue getting those cleaned up. As for this change, it's really minor in the grand scheme of things, so I don't expect there will be much pushback. Just going through the motions at this point! --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a good idea to me. However, would it be worth having "Defunct" in addition to "Removed" (i.e. Planned, Under construction, Operating, Temporarily closed, Defunct, Removed)? – Epicgenius (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for weighing in. I thought about that, but then I was thinking it would be nice to just have one status that covers both bases – "still standing" and "removed" – instead of providing two that are somewhat interchangeable. That way we can set it and forget it, and not worry about mini, drive-by edit wars where IPs constantly flip it back and forth between the two. We used to see that in attraction articles, where statuses frequently changed back and forth between Defunct and Demolished. Just my 2¢. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)]
  • Isn't SBNO (Standing But Not Operating) a better differentiation for rides that have closed but not been removed (either could be permanent or temporary), and then a "removed" status separately which clarifies this? --Aadams (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • SBNO is usually used to refer to rides, not parks. --Ahecht (TALK
      PAGE      ) 14:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
      • In addition, I believe SBNO is still fan jargon for the status of a roller coaster or theme park and not widely used as terminology in reliable sources. It may also confuse a reader not familiar with the terminology in infoboxs. Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
        Yes, and that actually came up in the 2016 discussion linked above, where it was decided to avoid the use of SBNO. Instead of fan jargon, we should describe using plain English that is self-explanatory to non-experts and non-enthusiasts alike. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I would be in favor replacing closed with defunct, as it can cover a wider category of amusement parks. Defunct would also cover amusement parks that are abandoned before construction or during construction (i.e. Universal Studios Dubailand, Wonderland Amusement Park (Beijing)). It also fixes the temporary aspect of the status might have and reduce frequent changes. Though while we are here, I am also a bit timid by the use of the planning status. Would an amusement park article be viable even in its planning stages? Would that make the status then redundant? Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    "Would an amusement park article be viable even in its planning stages?"
    Could you explain a bit further? Are you asking if an article would even exist during the planning stages? If so, then yes, it could exist prior to opening once it moves past an announcement and into a development stage. Then "Planned" would change to "Under construction" once ground is broken.
    As for "Closed" being replaced, I think that status is still needed for situations where a park may close temporarily with an understanding it will be reopening at some point. "Defunct", which implies a permanent status, wouldn't work in those situations. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    To the statement, if an article is viable if a theme park was just announced or where there has not been significant physical development. Similar to the trend on Wikipedia roller coaster articles (that I have seen), we usually won't start them if they are just announced. Only do we start when there is physical happenings and more sources. I'll borrow a point from the roller coaster discussion. Planning is not necessary as it is in the nature of WP:NOTNEWS because of its non-enduring notability status. By the time it has lasting notability its either in construction or stagnant.
    On closed, I would agree, but temporary closures is not a status we should play around with either per WP:TRAVELGUIDE. I understand the statement, but to the misinformed, that would also open the possibility of adding the "closed" status when amusement parks are not in an operating season which is unnecessary. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, all good points. In this day and age, land clearing, drainage pipes, and other forms of construction usually take place prior to an official announcement. After the press release, then there's an official breaking ground ceremony at some point. So the status "Planned" may be obsolete anymore. We usually skip that stage and go right to "Under construction" by the time the park is officially announced. Universal's Epic Universe is a good example of one that went through that recently. For comparison's sake, the WP:FILM project typically avoids creating articles for new films until principal photography has begun, which for our project is the equivalent to construction beginning.
    Back on closed, I was thinking more along the lines of a park that goes through a lengthy, non-seasonal closure. For example, a park that has financial issues, closes, gets bought by a bigger fish and reopens a year or so later. During that time, we can't really mark it Operating or Defunct. And while there's always the concern that editors will misuse "Closed" for seasonal closures (I encountered some of that last winter season), that's something we're already going to have to deal with on attraction articles, since "Closed" is one of those statuses. It doesn't happen often enough to be that much of a concern. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    I see the land on which you stand and I agree with its dimensions. It is hard to define if something has really ceased function as in being defunct. It may be more of historical context than anything that we classify something as closed rather than defunct. For now, I think closed is a good parameter to keep with defunct. I'd be happy to let others chime in too about how we feel about planning. Adog (Talk・Cont) 22:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I support using defunct as well. For the reasons listed above, it seems like the most all-encompassing word as opposed to removed. Windyshadow32 (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Additional proposal

  • Cancelled

Sorry to clutter this up folks, but after looking at the multiple parks with non-standard statuses, it appears we need another status to represent cancelled projects that were never completed. "Defunct" doesn't really work for those. I propose adding "Cancelled". If anyone wants to weigh in on that as well, please do. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Summary

Ahecht, looks like this may be all the feedback we end up getting, but there doesn't appear to be any opposition to making the proposed status field update:

  • Cancelled, Planned, Under construction, Operating, Closed, Defunct

Would appreciate your assistance making the change, and I'd be happy to follow behind and update the template documentation. It would be great if you could get "Demolished" and "Removed" to resolve to "Defunct", and the alternative spelling of "Canceled" to resolve to "Cancelled". Also if you have time, I was thinking about consolidating the "Location" parameters (|Location2, |Location3) into just one "Location" if it's not too much work. To avoid breaking existing infoboxes, we'd have to make that backward compatible to accept the old parameters, but moving forward, I'd like to simplify this field in the template doc as well (though this is a secondary concern). --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I felt compelled to revert recent changes to Jantzen Beach Carousel, even though I believe the editor was attempting to update the entry in good faith. Not only was too much text changed at once, but some of the claims were poorly sourced and others contradicted previously used sources. If any editors want to help make Wikipedia-compliant improvements, please feel free to help out! I've started a discussion on the talk page and hope the editor will engage. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

AfD: Magic Kingdom Parade

Please see WP:Articles for deletion/Magic Kingdom Parade (2nd nomination) and consider adding this page to your watchlist. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Six Flags Great Escape

Article may need to be moved from "The Great Escape and Hurricane Harbor" to "Six Flags Great Escape". Please see Talk:The Great Escape and Hurricane Harbor#Official name change?. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding POVs to ride articles

I experimented with this idea a few days ago by adding some ride POVs available on Commons to their corresponding articles. Surprisingly, there aren't many on Commons. Imagine being a person who has never heard of this roller coaster before, looking it up, checking Wikipedia, and being able to watch a POV of it without having to go to YouTube. You'll see some videos that are Creative Commons ride POVs. For example here. You could also do some digging on other places where you could find Creative Commons POVs. So my idea is to start adding more Creative Commons POVs to roller coaster articles. RanDom 404 (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

POVs could certainly be useful in articles. However, I would be hesitant about any POV inclusion and stick to a standard where the video is of decent quality, has no obstructed views, and is not overtly shakey (plus that they are properly licensed to be uploaded to Wikipedia). Adog (Talk・Cont) 19:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, TheCoasterScoop's POVs are extremely high quality, and almost all listed under Creative Commons license, which YouTube says grants the rights for it to be reused. RanDom 404 (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
OK, would you mind explaining this in more detail? The main issues with linking to videos on YouTube (and other streaming sites) is that it can be seen as an attempt to drive traffic to a particular channel (or content creator), as well as concerns over copyright (the channel owner may tell you it's their content, but there's no guarantee). Here are some links I recommend visiting if you haven't already:
If the videos are from verified channels that could also pass as a reliable source, then in general, I don't see any harm in providing a link to the video in the "External links" section. But local consensus at any article can always decide against having it, and it may end up getting axed when an article gets nominated for FA. Also, I would be particularly cautious about using YouTube as an inline citation like you did in your examples. They're a better fit when treated as a "more information" external link on Wikipedia as opposed to "proof" something is accurate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

IronGargoyle, I noticed you are mass-adding POVs to roller coaster articles. Not sure if you're aware of this discussion, so I've pinged you here. I've noticed that you are selecting "Canobie Coasters" on YouTube for the source in many of these, which strikes me as odd. For Top Thrill Dragster, for example, why not use official POVs when they exist? For the reasons stated above, this can be seen as a blatant attempt to drive traffic to particular channel, and one that isn't even a verified channel. Care to explain the reasoning behind that? --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

If the POVs are CC licensed, as alluded to above by RanDom, then they could be downloaded from YouTube then uploaded to Commons. Then the POV video could be embedded in the article directly as a video, with no YouTube involved. Then there would be no trouble with driving traffic to a particular channel. Leijurv (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, these are CC licensed and uploaded to Commons. They are not driving traffic to a channel (unless people want to follow the attribution and source). If you see any other YouTubers that upload high-quality coaster stuff under a free license, that would be great to upload too. Canobie Coasters is just the first channel I noticed that was doing it. Official channels would be fine if the license was free. As far as I can tell though, Cedar Fair does not freely license their videos. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Leijurv and IronGargoyle, thanks for the explanation. That clears the first hurdle regarding licensing, which is a big one. Beyond that, however, we should probably set abide by a standard for quality. POVs should be professionally-mounted cameras that only shake with the train, or at the very least, should retain the same position/perspective throughout the course of the ride. In addition, we should opt for videos where you can't hear what riders are saying. A few screams and background noise is no issue, IMO. I haven't reviewed all the recently-added videos, but one that seems to fail this proposed standard is the one added to Anaconda. Riders can be heard, the perspective shifts slightly throughout the ride, and it's not exactly smooth at times.
I think in those situations, instead of housing a 3rd-party POV on Commons, we simply provide an external link to an official POV. In fact, in many cases the official POV will be preferred. The exception to that general rule is if you want to provide video of the off-ride experience, in which case, uploading freely-licensed videos to Commons would actually be preferred. Interested to hear what others think. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
**Note: Pinging some of the other active editors on the project – Adog, Elisfkc, Jedi94, JlACEer, McDoobAU93, Varnent, and Windyshadow32 – who may want to weigh in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) On a smaller note, I did not get the ping GoneIn60 so you might have to try again :P, but I am watching nonetheless while editing BGT. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we should get caught up on video quality. An adequate-quality, freely-licensed video is better than no video or an unfree video of better quality. Should we improve the video quality with better freely-licensed alternatives when available? Absolutely, but there is not always lot of freely-licensed content out there. I think external links can be helpful sometimes, but we should never replace adequate freely-licensed content with external links. Quality can be judged on a case-by-case basis. I feel like setting up arbitrary standards related to sound and image stability run contrary to WP:NOTBURO. Noise is important for some viewers to understand which elements riders find more thrilling. You can always mute your speakers if you don't want to hear it. I've only cut out noise when I felt there was an issue with copyrighted audio (that wasn't de minimis). IronGargoyle (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I am on the fence. I think the inclusion of freely-licensed videos on Wikipedia does improve article quality. However, I do agree with the 'arbitrary' standards about quality. While we should stride for the inclusion of any media where there is none, if there are more acceptable mediums available and already on Wikipedia, we should not have scrape for the bottom of the barrel and include lower-quality add-ons.
Videos are subject to the same scrutiny as images. For this reason, I would refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Like images, videos should be a visual aid to the viewer. If we already have plenty of visual aids on the article, I do not think we necessarily always need a video embedded on the Wiki-page where external links can be used as a substitute. As an example, Sand Serpent has plenty of quality images, and the addition of File:Sand Serpent Busch Gardens Tampa Mack Wild Mouse POV.webm can help aid in the visual experience; however, the video can be easily substituted by the textual description (ride experience section) in the article as the POV faces the sky most of the ride.
As for my opinion not based on guidelines, I think sound is important as it enhances the visual experience, but it is subject to the uploader's discretion. I would rather have a soundless video of a log flume POV than Robb Alvey proclaiming "we are on a log flume" :P. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in, Adog. I can't say I disagree with any of those points! As for IronGargoyle's response...
"I feel like setting up arbitrary standards related to sound and image stability run contrary to WP:NOTBURO" – I agree that we shouldn't be "setting up" these standards arbitrarily. Existing advice in the MOS about image quality, as well as general video standards we've abided by in the past, should be a factor. We should always treat guidance in this realm as simply a guideline and not some hard & fast rule.
"Noise is important for some viewers to understand which elements riders find more thrilling." – I don't believe anyone is disagreeing. General noise (i.e. screams, laughs, etc.) are fine, as I mentioned earlier. Where I'd draw the line is hearing banter, speech, and general talk from the riders. Either that should be edited out, or we should skip videos that contain it. Just my 2¢ anyway.
Quality is always going to be a subjective thing, and the need to include video will vary from article to article. I don't think the default should be to include, because that forces us to look for "the best of what's available". When there's a freely-licensed video that satisfies both quality and article need, then let's include it. When that's not the case, linking to an official POV that was professionally recorded is a very good alternative and may even be the best option in some cases. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not saying that we include videos which are absolute garbage and I'm not saying we shouldn't have standards of quality. There were quite a few videos I chose not to copy over from YouTube because of really bad camera angles, back seat videography, poor lighting, and the like. They didn't show the ride experience and so were unhelpful. I just think we can discuss these issues on a case-by-case basis. That's the whole principle of WP:NOTBURO. There are project-wide image and video guidelines, and these videos are still subject to those. If our standards were to exclude any videos with rider banter, for example, I think those standards would be unrealistically high. These are filmed in live-park conditions and it's impossible to control what the other riders say. These videos are not simple to get. You need proper camera equipment and the park will not always allow you to film even then.
Honestly, the biggest quality issue I've been running into has been custom intros and outros which promote a YouTube channel (e.g., File:Fury 325 Carowinds POV.webm, File:Twisted Colossus Six Flags Magic Mountain POV.webm). I've been trying to edit them out with Commons:VideoCutTool, but I've been running into technical problems. In any case, a central goal of Wikipedia is that we have encyclopedia articles that rely as little on unfree materials as possible. Removing freely-licensed videos and replacing them with unfree external links is directly contrary to that purpose. Maybe we should encourage the parks to freely license their footage instead of stressing over a few bad camera angles or chatty people in the scarce footage we do have. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Understood. Definitely appreciate the effort you've put into this. Just looking to vet this before it runs rampant, but I do believe it's a net benefit to Wikipedia and the community. Are you screen-recording the videos, modifying as needed, and then uploading to Commons? If so, I can probably help in that regard. I use Davinci Resolve to post-edit a lot of video in my spare time. Just let me know. As for encouraging parks to freely license the POVs, that's an idea. Of course, we'd still be limited in capturing those without a watermark. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The specific method of capturing video from YouTube is probably a gray area best not discussed in depth. While it's perfectly legal for YouTube videos appropriately licensed as creative commons, not every YouTube video is licensed as such, and therefore such tools could be seen as copyright protection countermeasures, see youtube-dl#RIAA takedown request as an example that ran into legal trouble because it captured the actual datastream from YouTube to the browser in a way that circumvented YouTube's efforts against this, rather than simply as you say screen recording the video being displayed. Leijurv (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh I just realized that we have an entire article on how best to do this: Comparison of YouTube downloaders hahahah never mind then Leijurv (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
For the record, I was only referring to the capture of videos marked with a CC BY license. More specifically, I was offering assistance with post-editing (after the video is obtained) in case that wasn't clear! --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I used video2commons, as my own computer is a steaming heap of garbage (and honestly, it's a very simple tool to use). It was easier to have the transfer, processing and conversion done server-side. That's why I was trying to do the editing on Commons:VideoCutTool too. In theory, it's an ideal tool for trimming a few seconds off the beginning and end of a video, but it just hasn't worked for me. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hybrid coaster classification

Please weigh in at Talk:Lightning Rod (roller coaster)#Hybrid classification, which involves the use of the "hybrid" classification. Thank you. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Boblo Island Amusement Park

Could someone help me with structure of this article? I need to get more information on history, etc., but this is not my topic area, and besides being able to add newspaper references in bunches, I'm a bit lost. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Sammi Brie, I can probably help out when I can find the time. In the meantime, please see Cedar Point and Kings Island as examples of how content can be organized. A general structure layout is described at WP:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Standards, so that may help as well. One thing I will note is that less signficant venues inside the park, such as restaurants and other minor amenities, should probably be left out unless they have received secondary source coverage. Primary sources, such as the park's main website and press releases, are not enough IMO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @GoneIn60, that helps. Most of what I've added so far is park history in the final years. We're dealing with a pre-internet facility here. (I need to go back and do more of the 70s and 80s.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Templates now have alt parameters

Some templates in this project, like {{Infobox roller coaster}}, lacked alt text parameters for images. These have now been added. If you edit with images—of any variety—it's really a good idea to learn how to use and generate alt text (MOS:ALT). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

SeaWorld San Diego

There is an ongoing discussion on including orca deaths in SeaWorld San Diego with further input being requested for interested parties: Talk:SeaWorld San Diego#Why not include orca deaths. Adog (Talk・Cont) 20:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

A sign but no source

I have worked on Iron Gwazi to promote it to WP:GA status. While I would like to get it to a higher status, I have a fact I would like to put into the article but have no present online source to cite it or back it up. The fact comes from a queue line sign in the Iron Gwazi rotunda, which states: An additional 375,000 board feet of lumber [was] installed to support Iron Gwazi. I wanted to inquire if anyone in the APARKS project knows: 1) if you can cite a primary sources' signage where no present secondary source exists and, 2) if possible, how does one cite a sign? If anyone can give me a sign, it would help. :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  1. While secondary sources are the gold standard, primary sources are usually acceptable and sometimes even preferred depending on context. Where they can run into trouble is when the cited information has the appearance of being promotional. I don't think that's the case here. Another issue, however, is significance. Without a secondary source, it can be argued that it's trivial information. You can always try it and then remove it if it runs into any issues during FA review (I doubt it will if cited correctly – see below).
  2. As for how to cite one, check out {{Cite sign}}, which is used for signs and plaques. I've never used it, so if you get stuck, consider asking for help/feedback at a general forum like WP:TEA or WP:REFD. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
    Appreciate the information! I did not even know we had a sign citation. Thanks for the sign! :) Adog (Talk・Cont) 13:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
😉👍 --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Silver Beach County Park#Requested move 7 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Silver Beach County Park#Requested move 7 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

SoopperDooper who?

I would like to request some help to figure out who did what for the SooperDooperLooper (SDL). The Roller Coaster DataBase states that the SDL was a Schwarzkopf make (or manufacturer), with Werner Stengel as the designer. Although the roller coaster looks like an Schwarzkopf and I am inclined to believe RCDB, historic newspapers vary as to who did what.

  • An initial announcement in April 1976 states Intamin as the manufacturer (Lebanon Daily News).
  • A report on the opening date in May 1977 states the SDL was designed and built in Schwaben, West Germany, bought...in Zurich, Switzerland, and set on structural steel designed in Santa Monica, [CA]. (York Daily Record).
  • Later reports would say Schwarzkopf was the designer (The Morning Call), (The Evening Sun) or creator (The Daily News).
  • During the lawsuit deposition for a death on the SDL, newspapers report Schwarzkopf as the manufacturer, and Intamin as the distributor (Lebanon Daily News), (The Daily News). More specifically, Schwarzkopf was the designer and Intamin in charge of construction and installation (The Daily News).
  • Another lawsuit lists Intamin as the manufacturer (The Daily News).
  • A modern report states that Schwarzkopf was the designer, and Intamin "purchased" the ride, whatever that means (WHTM).
  • The only mention I have found thus far of Werner Stengel having been involved in from the Hershey Archives stating he was an architect.
  • Also this to consider, with Schwarzkopf as the designer and "purchased through" Intamin (Hersheypark)

I want to conclude based on the varying news reports, that:

  • Schwarzkopf – Designer and manufacturer,
  • Werner Stengel – Architect of the design and plans,
  • Intamin – Business facilitator and maybe in-charge of installation and construction (maybe manufactured the supports).

If anyone can provide input, it would be appreciated. Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

According to Coasterpedia, Intamin represented Schwarzkopf outside of Germany in its "early years", which would have been throughout the 1970s. I don't know much about Intamin's early history, so perhaps someone else can chime in with more details, but I think your analysis here is pretty spot on. The sources surrounding the lawsuits are likely the strongest indication of their relationship, since passing mentions in newspapers only focused on the creator, which most of the time mentioned Schwarzkopf. Would be helpful as well to have some of that early Intamin history with business relationships added to Intamin's main article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Coasterpedia admin here. That is my understanding too and I'm sure I've come across proper sources in the past that confirm it (our Intamin article is currently unsourced). I will have a look. NemesisAT (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
NemesisAT, greatly appreciated! --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@GoneIn60 Found some Intamin material on Theme Park Review that confirms they worked with Schwarzkopf. Am not sure if Wikipedia guidelines allow that to be referenced directly but at the very least should let us confirm that SooperDooperLooper was a Schwarzkopf designed and built coaster. NemesisAT (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you graciously, I believe it could be used as an offline source. Maybe I'll have to dig around in Newspapers.com and see if they have anything on the roller coaster manufacturers. I appreciate both of your help, some of these article's are a doozy to research even with a newspaper archive. Adog (Talk・Cont) 01:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Here's another source. I thought it was pretty well known that Intamin represented Schwarzkopf outside of Germany and Werner Stengal did most of the ride engineering. If you Google Schwarzkopf and Intamin, you will see various retellings of the same tale that I referenced. "Intamin represented Schwarzkopf outside of Germany and many of the early coasters credited to Intamin are actually Schwarzkopf coasters." Intamin subcontracted nearly everything for the first few decades of its existence. Although some credit Cedar Point's Junior Gemini as the first Intamin coaster, that was subcontracted as well. A few years ago when I interviewed Sascha Czibulka, the current Executive Vice President of Intamin, he told me that the first coaster that Intamin truly manufactured was Lethal Weapon Pursuit at Movie Park Germany, which opened in 1996.—JlACEer (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Hey that is awesome! Its great getting to know some new insight into the manufacturer, especially first-hand. I think after Busch Gardens Tampa Bay is done (eventually), manufacturers might be on my list to update. I was not very familiar being an amateur enthusiast. Asking y'all and researching these rides are making me learn a lot about the amusement industry. It stinks the ACE documentary about Schwarzkopf is so far away... Adog (Talk・Cont) 13:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware)

Additional community input is requested in a discussion about appropriate article content at Talk:Funland_(Rehoboth_Beach,_Delaware). CodeTalker (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Can we get the page unprotected? It currently is heavily outdated, and with it being unprotected, I don'think it's gonna get fixed. 24.188.113.103 (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed splitting of Six Flags Great America

There is a discussion of a proposed splitting of Six Flags Great America to History of Six Flags Great America. If you have any thoughts on the merger and/or splitting, please add to the discussion here. Thank you. --Harobouri T • C (he/him) 12:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Categories that are automatically generated from templates

The {{Infobox roller coaster}} template ran into an issue recently, where the status at a coaster article was changed to "Under construction" during its renovation, but this caused an odd, new category creation for "Roller coasters planned to open in 1994". The intentions were good back when this auto-cat feature was added to this template, but moving forward, we've learned it can cause issues. I've suggested the feature be removed. Please weigh in with your thoughts at Template talk:Infobox roller coaster#Automatically-generated categories. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 06:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft proposal for the future of WP:APARKS

Consensus is in favor of this proposal. Running for three months (with a month tacked on for good measure), participants have an overall consensus to update the WikiProject Amusement Parks. Proposed motions held less participation, but overall had a general consensus to follow through with further discussions on each matter. Additional discussions can be found below. Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:02, 5 December 2022 (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.

So, it has been almost ten years since the last major discussion on the future of WP:WikiProject Amusement Parks. Since the discussion, the project has flourished. I was not around during this era, but I do appreciate the sense of community the project brought in tying collaboration efforts together. Since being a member of this project, I have felt that another discussion is warranted, as some areas have fallen into a bit of disrepair, and some areas can be improved. I would like to formally propose changes to be discussed within the interim month(s) (September–October) and invite others to propose their thoughts about how we can improve and update our project. Some initial proposals can be found below. Members are welcome to support or oppose with a comment about their decision regarding these changes and/or add their proposals to be discussed. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is about time we clean up around here and reorganize! I've done bits and pieces here and there over the years, but we really need a focused effort to get more done. Following a surge in activity in the early 2010s, the project fell back into decline in late 2014, especially after Themeparkgc (whom I fear may no longer be with the living) abruptly stopped editing in December 2015. Themeparkgc was critical to laying a lot of the foundation we still rely on today and helped create/manage our templates. Wish we would have had the chance to meet or speak outside of Wikipedia. Astros4477 helped reenergize the project, and Dom497 led the charge with Operation B&M and reinstating the newsletter for a few issues. We're in a different era now, of course, with some new faces and fresh ideas. It would be good to pool resources and set some common goals among those that remain.
Also, fun fact...I never knew until now that WP:APARKS was a shortcut for this project! Guess you learn something new every day! --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with that GoneIn60. Currently, it seems like the project is much less active than in the early 2010s, with the loss of Themeparkgc, Astros, and Dom. Consequently, during the past several years, the quality of APARKS' existing GAs and FAs has suffered - for example, yesterday I had to update Medusa (Six Flags Great Adventure) because, apparently, nobody bothered to add sources for the fact that the coaster had been renamed. On the other hand, new GAs have been restricted mostly to Florida, with a smattering in New York. Hopefully, this will change soon with the new GANs that Adog just submitted, but the fact is, we need some more editors who are willing to work on content. Epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Greetings! I support these proposals and welcome the discussion. I will be one of said editors willing to work on content and ensure we continue to produce results to a high standard. UnknownBrick22 (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I've been a participant of this WikiProject for a few months and I support all of the below -- it would definitely be interesting to see a revitalization / new era of this WikiProject! from yours truly, Harobouri T • C 22:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping—I've been more or less in wiki-hibernation now for well over a year and only check back to maintain my smattering of passion projects (including a major one within the scope of this project). I largely support all of the initiatives listed below, but successful implementation is predicated on the idea that we'll have droves of people coming into the project. Our #1 focus should be getting people in. This is the key issue; park/coaster enthusiasm is rather niche and a lot of these ideas won't get off the ground until we get numbers of active editors up. I don't think the third section of your proposal does enough to solve this. We need a plan to get APARKS some more exposure, and get people outside the project interested in coming in. Open to suggestions. — CR4ZE (T • C) 10:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Wow. I am grateful for the responses thus far! It is great seeing some new participation and faces around here. I had refrained from replying to this thread to see what our corner community thinks about said proposals for a month, and I am happy about the responses and feedback from discussion that have taken place. I do agree with everything below and above.
To further discuss, summarize, and note thus far:
Altogether, I think leaving this discussion up for another month would be good, maybe into November if another editor or existing editors want to drop a note. I also want to give the floor to ya'll as well. If you have any ideas of how to update our project, do not be afraid and post a subsection on your proposal you may have (even if you are an outsider or non-member)! Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to input a suggestion that maybe we should reorganize our navbar menu in our WikiProject for it to look more appealable or fit within the page (if thats the correct phrase)
E.g, I'm currently on my iPad and the navbar menu extends outside of the page. On my laptop, the navbar menu has an extra empty box.
That's the only suggestion I have at this moment. Thanks! Harbouri: Let's talk! (This is a legitimate alternative account for Harobouri.) 19:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Ending Operation B&M

When it was proposed, Operation B&M helped participants of our WikiProject to collaborate on specific amusement park articles relating to Bolliger & Mabillard (B&M). However, it has been 9 years since the last major milestone. 50% is fantastic, but this collaboration is long overdue and has not met its goals. Moreover, it is particular towards B&M, and we have plenty of manufacturers, and amusement parks that should be shown some love in article improvement.

I propose we formally archive Operation B&M to the informal graveyard.

I think this would be a good idea. To me, Operation B&M seemed like it was quite broad, since the company has built dozens of coasters, making it very hard to improve 100% of the pages to GA status. Epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Long-term drives

Who knew we had barnstars and awards? I certainly did not (well, kinda). From the era they were created, de-stubbing articles was a good criterion for some kind of award. Why not play into that? General improvement of all amusement park-related articles would be an admirable goal.

In place of possibly retiring Operation B&M, I propose we formally create a new long-term drive (6 months to a year) that gives ample opportunity for improving amusement park-related articles that more prominently involve the use of our Awards (currently "Interlocking Loops of Excellence," "The Coaster Barnstar," and "The Roller Coaster Barnstar").

Sounds reasonable. I think what you will generally find is that there is limited capacity late spring thru late summer, when editors spend a lot more time adding updates from announcements, creating new articles, and reverting vandalism. There's just enough of us to keep the lights on. Fall and winter, which in many regions tends to be slower, would be good times of the year to collaborate and push for a new drive. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree as well. Perhaps we can replace Operation B&M with smaller-scale collaborations, such as for individual parks. A more localized collaboration (e.g. a drive to bring all Cedar Point rides to GA status) is much more viable, as it has a more tangible goal (e.g. a good topic for Cedar Point). Epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Member participation and involvement

As of June 2020, we have/had around 70 active members on our project. That is awesome! However, I feel like I do not see many of your faces around (or signatures). Maybe some are WikiGnomes improving amusement park articles here and there. Maybe there are active editors not in our project yet who may want to join but have not—my mind wonders. Anyways, I want to propose several measures for member participation and involvement that may encourage more active participation, provide better communication and collaboration, and help with editor retention. It includes:

A) Establishing a welcoming committee for new participants and creating a tab on WP:WikiProject Amusement Parks for beginning editors. Participants would not need to post ads on their userpage, but a welcome here and there goes a long way for those finding their way around our project.

B) Bringing back a newsletter from its minimal form in 2013 for whom anyone can contribute their thoughts and wishes in either a quarterly or bi-annual issue. Does anyone have any fun names for a magazine, like how Amusement Today publishes their monthly magazine?

C) Creating a WikiProject Amusement Parks Hall of Fame for participants who, over the years, have actively made an impact on our corner of Wikipedia through contributions to amusement park articles, providing persistent maintenance, and overall embodying real-life amusement park innovators. There are several editors I have personally looked up to that have since gone retired or missing. Some here are actively editing. What's better than celebrating your achievements?

D) Encouraging participants to access databases to improve our amusement park articles through the Wikipedia Library. Newspapers.com is a godsend for any roller coaster article in the 20th century. NewspaperArchive somewhat so. Letting editors know where to find these resources would be beneficial for improving existing articles or other sources you might know.

A: Support. I'm still kinda new here, and I'll admit that I'm still not sure what to do here (besides attempting to perform cleanup on things that look like they could use some cleanup), so something like this would go a long way to helping others in this sort of situation as well.
B: Support. Makes sense overall. Trying to think of a pun based on 'thoosie' and 'news' that sounds not-terrible enough to be usable as a name for it, but I can't really think of anything.
C: Support. Might help to provide some more encouragement for people to actively contribute to the project, and motivate people to keep on contributing. I suppose you could try to encourage further contributions by indicating whether someone's 'active' or 'retired' on there (with being 'active' and in the hall-of-fame being somewhat more impressive than reaching the hall-of-fame and then being marked as 'retired' or something), but then again idk if that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia halls-of-fame or not.
D: Support. I'll admit that I genuinely did not know that the Wikipedia Library contained resources that would be useful for theme parks. I honestly didn't realize that it had stuff that could be relevant to amusement parks (I was under the impression that it mostly consisted of research papers and such), but having this sort of signposting to these resources would be pretty darn useful to any other newbies here 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk | contrib) 16:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I think all of these would be great ideas. I'm not sure if we have enough people for B, but if we do, that would be great. The Wikipedia Library is extremely useful for finding sources. I'd suggest ProQuest as well (which is accessible through the Wikipedia Library), as it may have access to journals that aren't available elsewhere. Epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Amusement park source database

I asked about the potential for WP:WikiProject Amusement Parks to have a perennial source-like database a while back. A database about what sources we can and cannot use would be detrimental. For new and existing users, a database of sources can ensure confidence about additions coming from reliable sources. Editors outside the range of amusement parks might not feel as confident when we use amusement park-specific sources such as Roller Coaster DataBase. A discussion page to point to a source's reliability (with a short explanation of its reliability) would help in outside discussions for those who might not be familiar with the sources we frequently use.

I propose WikiProject Amusement Parks creates an in-house noticeboard for verifying reliable sources, such as with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources where sources can be posted similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. If we can not independently verify a source, users would be redirected to WP:RSN, where a consensus can be more broadly created and results posted to a source board.

Support. Makes sense overall, can't see any problems with this proposal. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I also support this proposal. We need clear guidance on whether sources like RCDB and YouTube POVs are acceptable. We frequently use these, but editors outside of APARKS may not approve of these sources (see, for instance, Template:Did you know nominations/Dania Beach Hurricane). Epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Worth pointing out that RCDB has its own article, but as far as I'm aware, it has never been fully vetted at WP:RSN (though it did have a name drop here and met no opposition). It has also been name-dropped in deletion discussions. As a topic, it has received coverage in secondary sources. Although I consider it unbiased and generally reliable, I often caution that it's an online database that's being actively updated all the time; it's best used as a complementary source.
YouTube POVs need to be carefully vetted on a case-by-case basis. They are not automatically banned, but they generally aren't acceptable for reasons stated at WP:VIDEOLINK. At minimum, the YT channel should either be a certified channel or be owned by an established expert in the field. It also shouldn't have any WP:SPS issues or concerns (drive-by IPs could cite them hoping to drive traffic to their channel). But even when it meets those minimum requirements, there's still no guarantee it can be used as a citation. Like RCDB, YT POVs, at best, should only be used as a complementary source IMO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, when carrying out our own research we've found several mistakes in the RCDB. That being said Duane Marden is always interested in updating and fixing them. I have also personally contributed information to it. NemesisAT (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, great point. I know I've submitted error corrections to them as well in the past. This is exactly why I urge others to avoid citing RCDB as the ultimate source of truth, though I do consider it a notch or two higher than most primary sources, such as amusement park claims which have a marketing interest! --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Revisit attraction infobox and WP:TRAVELGUIDE

Some members (including myself) had mediated on inappropriate parameters for the infobox of roller coasters in a 2018 discussion. Since then, I have changed my beliefs on some categories and do not include them in articles I try to update. My concerns mainly pertain to the whole Rider information parameters of Template:Infobox roller coaster, and the Additional information parameter "pay_per_use". I believe these parameters straddle the line between objective information and WP:TRAVELGUIDE for readers.

I propose we revisit what parameters are acceptable and change our infobox accordingly (not at this moment to vote on these parameters, just a vote to revisit this discussion as more parameters may be highlighted).

Yes, these parameters should be discussed, if for no other reason than to establish a clear consensus on what the infobox can include. The fact that a ride can be pay-per-use may be relevant, but the price of one ride most definitely is not, for example. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Improving existing articles

Woo-wee, we have 13 Featured Articles, 4 Featured Lists, and 117 Good Articles. According to our wonderful statistic bots, 0.5% of articles are FA-status, and 6.8% are GA, FA, or FL status (as of September 2022). I think anything above 5% is remarkable. Addressed above was a drive for the potential improvement of general amusement park articles. There are specific articles in our higher graces that need some love too. Either because they have fallen into disrepair or we have access to resources that members in the past did not. I know Kumba (roller coaster) has more history than its one-paragraph leads to believe.

I propose we revisit some of our higher-status articles and reassess whether they still meet our higher quality criteria or need to be temporarily demoted to encourage improvement.

I also agree with this. There are some articles that have changed substantially since their promotion, e.g. Medusa (Six Flags Great Adventure), while others may be deficient in one way or another, e.g. articles with ridiculously short history sections. I'm worried that such articles may not meet modern GA standards, so it's a good idea to at least check these pages. Epicgenius (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Assessing notability

I love seeing my favorite old roller coasters on our project. Lots of them do not have sources or information for the reasons stated above. Some might not have any sources and merely exist on the bounds and leaps of the Roller Coaster DataBase. But a simple truth about Wikipedia is that we are not the Roller Coaster DataBase. Unfortunately, some articles do not need to exist in our project because they do not meet WP:GNG. As a user pointed out on several article talk pages, we should be more active in improving articles or helping clean up the shop.

I want to propose whether specific amusement park articles need an established set of criteria for Wikipedia inclusion or a set of criteria editors can look towards whether we should consider merging or deleting topics.

There was a time when the old school of thought was "every coaster needed an article; all are notable". Many of our templates auto-categorize opening year, closing year, manufacturers, etc., so that reinforced the notion that every ride needed its own article to accomplish that. Focused initiatives like the Roller Coaster Task Force were born from that line of thinking!
Since then, I think we've come to understand the issues with doing that and the need to assess Notability on a case-by-case basis. On WP:REDIRECT pages, we can manually add categories to satisfy editors who wish to have every ride/coaster indexed and categorized. They don't need a dedicated article every time. This workaround is particularly useful in articles whose topics are demoted to a redirect. It would be wise to dedicate some real estate on the "Standards" page to explain this concept to new editors (e.g., when to create a standalone article, when to go with a redirect, how to categorize redirects, etc). --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I suppose that it's worth migrating the data about any non-notable rides over to Wikidata before deleting those pages/turning them into redirects (as chances are that nobody's done that yet), especially in the cases of any rides that aren't on RCDB for any reason (such as 'not being a rollercoaster'). After all, whilst not all rides are really notable enough for an article, they're all probably are notable enough for a somewhat comprehensive Wikidata item at very least. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
I also think we should copy over the roller coaster data to Wikidata, even if they aren't notable on Wikipedia. WD has a much lower notability standard than WP, so if something were cited to RCDB alone, that info could be moved over to WD (or a new WD item could be created). – Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Amusement_Parks/Archive_4&oldid=1161503346"