Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Standards

Updating the Standards

With the new collaboration being discussed here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Amusement_Parks#Collaboration_of_the_month I think it is about time we update the standards pages to reflect the best practices of creating amusement park and ride articles. This will help everyone know what is needed when we select a project to work on. Below are some basic questions to asses the new standards. Give example links with your answers so we know where to look.--Nickvet419 (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-Attractions-

What sections and details do you like in a Attraction article?

Most of the roller coaster GA follow a certain layout that seems to work.

==History==
===Construction===

==Ride experience==
===Layout===
===Trains===
===Track===
===Theme===

==Records==

==Awards/rankings==

Some sections don't apply to every coaster because it might not have any records or the information might not be available.--Astros4477 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally dislike the large "ride experience" section for roller coasters. I prefer something more like what was done on the Green Lantern Coaster article (note: it is not a GA yet):

==History==

==Characteristics==
===Trains===
===Statistics===
===Theme===

==Experience==
===Queue===
===Ride===
===Exit===

This could potentially be followed by things like awards, rankings and records. Themeparkgc Talk 23:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only have one problem with that, I think the Experience section should come before Characteristics. It just makes more sense to me, it doesn't seem right that the Ride section is one of the last sections on the page when that's one of the most important. Besides that, I think that's a great layout.--Astros4477 (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the format which The Simpsons Ride and Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey follow:

==Summary==
===Queue===
===Station/Preshow===
===Ride===

==Production==
===History===
===Ride mechanics===
===Cast===

==Reception==

I still prefer the style for Green Lantern Coaster though. Essentially, you first introduce how the ride came about and its development (i.e. history), then describe what it looks like (i.e. characteristics), then describe what it is like to experience for yourself, then summarise what people thought of it (i.e. reception/awards etc). Themeparkgc Talk 23:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another section worth considering for a lot of articles is a "Reception" section. These sections would definitely be good for GA candidates. Just try to stick to news website reviews and not blog/enthusiast reviews etc. Themeparkgc Talk 06:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So have we come up with a decision? I'm writing GA articles and it would probably be better not to have to change the articles after they get nominated and/or they get reviewed.--Dom497 (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If an article works well as it is, I'd say leave it. For articles we are improving in the future we need to decide on a standard. Themeparkgc Talk 22:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sections don't work well?

What articles are near or are GA standards?

User:Dom497 and I have been doing the most work in getting articles to GA status. Here you can find all the Good Articles in the project. In addition to those, there are a number of current GA nomiantions that haven't been reviewed. You can find Astros4477s' good articles and nominations Here and Dom497 good articles and nominations Here.--Astros4477 (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the format of The Wizarding World of Harry Potter (Islands of Adventure) should be used for future themed area articles. IMO (possibly with COI), this would probably be one of the best GAs we have. Themeparkgc Talk 23:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that article is very well written. That layout would work great with Disney and Universal articles. I don't think Six Flags themed areas are that important and Cedar Fair just doesn't know the meaning of theme.--Astros4477 (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have too many articles on Six Flags or Cedar Fair themed areas anyway. Are you said Disney and Universal are perfect fits. Themeparkgc Talk 23:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Ideas?

-Parks-

What sections and details do you like in the Park article?

List_of_former_Kings_Island_attractions Has a good format for past attractions. Also like how one column has "Manufacture (Model)" separate from the description of the rides. --Nickvet419 (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History section. Works out good if done by era as in Kings Island and Cedar Point --Nickvet419 (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is large enough, a separate history article may need to be created with a summary left in the main park's article. See History of Knott's Berry Farm and History of Dreamworld for examples. Themeparkgc Talk 23:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Park Logo Timeline as in Kings Island--Nickvet419 (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For a lot of parks, this would be against WP:NFCC. Some parks have freely available logos due to public domain licensing for text-only or simple images (e.g. File:KingsIsland-Logo.png). In this case it could work. Themeparkgc Talk 23:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like the completeness of the Kings_Island_Timeline.--Nickvet419 (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing I dislike about that article is lists lists lists. An article I wrote with a similar scope, History of Dreamworld, would be a better structure to follow as 80% of it is prose with the remaining portion tables. Themeparkgc Talk 23:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture is nice to have as in Cedar_Point#Popular_culture but could also include Notable events and people in the same section?. --Nickvet419 (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've actually been debating on whether to delete this section. I feel the list would never be complete, especially with a very popular park like Cedar Point. I was also told in the Peer Review that it wouldn't pass FAC.--Astros4477 (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What if it were written in paragraph form?--Nickvet419 (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other Facts Section, Each park has facts about the park that don't necessarily fit into other sections as in Kings_Island#Other or Cedar_Point#National_Register_of_Historic_Places. A separate section would be helpful organizing these additional facts.--Nickvet419 (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We need to be careful about including trivia sections. Themeparkgc Talk 23:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sections don't work well?

Lists of Shops--Nickvet419 (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In general yes, however, some cases like WhiteWater World list all the shops and it works quite well. Of course this would only work for small parks. Themeparkgc Talk 23:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe this section can be worked into the Park Layout section discussed below? I still have the lists from Kings Island that were removed. This descriptions had some good historical information in them but were removed as excessive lists. see User:Nickvet419/sandbox. I see how lists can be interpreted as a directory. --Nickvet419 (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable additions can be redundant, I think best to include in the article itself or timeline Kings_Island#Notable_additions --Nickvet419 (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What articles are near or are GA standards?

Cedar Point has been listed as a GA, Kings Island and Canada's Wonderland close.--Nickvet419 (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WhiteWater World is also a GA.--Astros4477 (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Ideas?

I like how Kings Island has the park sections with discriptions but I also like how Cedar Point groups together the ride types. Maybe we can have both. Group the rides together by type in a table format, but also list them in the park sections as just links. --Nickvet419 (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

or does the park link template do a good job as in Template:Kings_Island?--Nickvet419 (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the amount of prose in the articles should be maximised with a smaller focus put on tables and lists, especially if we are aiming for GA/FA standard. That is one thing I dislike about articles like Cedar Point – it has table after table. The park layout sections I have created for Dreamworld and Warner Bros. Movie World feature a single table but still describe all themed areas and attractions in detail. Essentially I have gone with the format of writing a small paragraph on each themed area with a small listing of the major attractions. This is followed by a table listing all attractions with links to relevant articles. Themeparkgc Talk 23:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the park but Cedar Point doesn't have any themed areas besides for Frontiertown and Frontier Trail so it would be difficult to do that in an article like Cedar Point.--Astros4477 (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting for it to be done for Cedar Point in particular. I guess for theme parks it would work where there are distinct themed sections. Themeparkgc Talk 01:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the "Park Layout" section for listing the themed areas. For ride lists column headings "Name, Section, Type, Opened, Manufacture(Model), Description, Rating"

--Nickvet419 (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How would this affect the Ride template that link the park areas?--Nickvet419 (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As with the articles I linked above (Dreamworld and Warner Bros. Movie World) you can add hidden anchors. For example, you can jump to Dreamworld#DreamWorks_Experience without there be a section on it thanks to {{Anchor}}. Themeparkgc Talk 07:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]