Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

What does everybody think about having some kind of quarterly newsletter? I'm not sure if this was previously done but I think it would be a good idea to keep people up-to-date on the project.--Astros4477 (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Roller Coasters had one (

archive). I wouldn't be against this project having one. Themeparkgc  Talk 

23:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I currently work on for WP: Good Articles so I could help out with one for here....we can use the old newsletter template from WP: Good Articles if we want.--Dom497 (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I could help out wherever needed. I've been thinking, is there any way to get people more interested in the project? Everybody loves roller coasters so shouldn't it be as popular as say WikiProject Video Games :)? Too bad the users that originally started the project aren't around anymore, they made a lot of great contributions from what I've seen.--Astros4477 (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

So...are we still going with this?--Dom497 (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to. How much more do we have to do?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 23:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

How ever much we think we need!--Dom497 (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've done a bit of work on the design here (as I previously said I would). Let me know your thoughts. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool! Just one issue: the formatting is off. When I use my laptop (smaller screen then my main computer) the newsletter goes off the screen and I have to scroll right to see the rest. I think this should be fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

How about now? If your laptop's resolution is 1024 wide or above, I think it should be fine. Themeparkgc  Talk  03:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit I really like the proposed format for the newsletter. Looks fine on my laptop at 1280 x 800 by the way. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

So we are now in quarter 2. Are we good to distribute the newsletter Dom? Themeparkgc  Talk  22:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You aren't thinking of putting the entire newsletter on peoples talk page right? I'm trying to come up with something similar to what WP:GA does so its not ready just yet.--Dom497 (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Check out the bottom of the sandbox. That's all I could come up with and it is pretty bad so if you got any ideas please include them.--Dom497 (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the newsletter itself over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Newsletters/Quarter 2, 2013 and I have added my own notification design to User:Dom497/sandbox 2. Thoughts on that design? Themeparkgc  Talk  08:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Your design is perfect! By the way, is the bottom of the full newsletter not showing up on your screen (the "circle" that surrounds the entire newsletter)?--Dom497 (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

How about now? Themeparkgc  Talk  00:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That's better, time to deliver?--Dom497 (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Themeparkgc  Talk  05:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm finding that a lot of roller coaster articles missing coordinates are using the "roller coaster extend" infobox to list past locations of a ride that has been moved. The coordinates of the current location are usually there. Has anyone considered removing that parameter from the extend infobox under the proposal that they're not really necessary? In some cases, it may be impossible to determine the past location of a ride, especially when dealing with older coasters that have been moved several times. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

In most cases you'll find RCDB has this information. I have, however, done a run thorugh the list to add as much information from RCDB as possible. People familiar with the parks might be able to lend a hand in the remaining scenarios which don't have coordinates from RCDB. I don't think there is any harm in having a list of these instances as the goal is to one day have all the information. Removing the categorisation would most likely cause these coordinates to never be filled. Themeparkgc  Talk  03:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. One other issue is the amount of precision we should use. Per

WP:OPCOORD, it appears that 0.0001 precision (<11m) would be appropriate, but 0.000001 (<11cm) is overkill and implies the structure is smaller than it really is. Perhaps we should at least modify the example in the infobox template to reflect that (and I apologize in advance if the discussion is better suited on the infobox template, but I thought it would have more visibility here). --GoneIn60 (talk

) 08:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Haven't really ever looked into precision before. Since the amusement park infoboxes don't provide any wrapping for the coord template it's really up to the individual user. If there is a parameter you can add to the infobox instructions that would work for the majority of cases, please add it. Themeparkgc  Talk  03:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

file:Walt Disney World logo.svg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.245.196 (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

As a visitor to the project I am shocked at the state of your standards outlined on these pages. The current structure is inflexible and it has led to some theme park articles being laid out in an erratic and incomprehensible way. The need to add details of food and shopping outlets in articles for theme parks seems to be extremely narrow minded. This information is of interest for a very small number of people and really has no useful purpose in the page. The standards also presume that all theme parks are laid out into discernible sections. Some don't or only have one or two sections of a particular theme. While these issues won't stop me in trying to improve these articles, it would be beneficial for others who might come looking for guidence if the rules were improved or made more flexible so that they can be adapted to articles without loosing the comparison between other parks. Rafmarham (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Tomorrowlandentrance_Cd637_(crop).jpg has been nominated for deletion --Ahecht (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys! I'm not a member of this project but I somehow got on your newsletter list. I can't seem to find how this happened, could someone enlighten me? Thanks! :) Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

This was an accident on my side...sorry.--Dom497 (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I got a newsletter as well, though I'm not a subscriber. No worries though; mistakes happen. Greengreengreenred 23:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The newsletter was accidentally delivered to all members of WikiCup, as that was the last WikiProject to utilise the delivery bot. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, we could use some topic expertise on how to advise the submitted. Thanks for any help! MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

A sufficient amount of references are not present (there is only one; might be a good idea to include some more) and the height requirements section isn't really needed. Prose is good though. :) --Dom497 (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Not really familiar with AFC, but I'll provide some comments. I agree with Dom regarding references, but the prose does need a fair bit of work:

• Why "shoot-the-Chutes" and not "Shoot-the-Chutes"?
• "The ride has two large boats which board a maximum of 20 riders." -- "board" has been used incorrectly here as it is a verb or a plank of wood etc
• "Tidal wave" --> "Tidal Wave" (several places)
• "During this time, Six Flags Magic Mountain did not have a shoot-the-Chutes ride during this time" -- double "during this time"
• The sentence in the last point overlaps the sentence that follows: "While the park already had two flume rides, the park was missing a shoot-the-chutes ride."
• "As the boat approaches the top of the lift hill, the boat begins turning left 180 degrees. " -- sounds like it turns left on the incline
• "1 conveyor belt lift hills"
• "20 riders per disptach riders per hour"
• "2 Large boats boats."
• "Riders are arranged 1 across in 20 rows for a total of 20 riders per boat." -- I doubt it is 20 rows. Is it 4x5 or something?

Also...

• Wikilinks to the following wouldn't go astray:
  Goldrusher, conveyor belt, lift hill
• Is this worth mentioning? Surely it has undergone some sort of refurb in that time. "Ever since the ride opened in 1989, the ride has undergone no changes."
• "it drew a lot of crowds" is begging for sources
• This should be removed: "Wait times for the ride varies. During weekdays, the wait time is usually no longer than 5-10 minutes. During the late afternoons and the evenings, there is usually no line waiting. During weekends, the wait time is typically 10-20 minutes assuming both of the boats are being used during this time."
• Units should be converted using {{Tl|Convert
• If the height requirement section is kept, you might want to mention that a lap bar is used instead of simply saying "There are no seat belts in the boats."
• There is heaps of information in the lead that doesn't appear in the main article.

Hope this helps. Themeparkgc  Talk  00:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't be renamed as WP Roller Coaster's no longer exists? I don't want to change anything because I've never moved a category and I would probably screw it up :P --Dom497 (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes it should be moved. I don't know if its possible to move it without it going to discussion, Themeparkgc will probably know more.--Astros4477 (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Categories are harder to move than pages. Astros is right, they must go through a discussion process. If we build consensus here, then we could possibly take it to

WP:CFD to get it moved. Also, don't forget about Category:WikiProject Disneyland, Category:WikiProject Herschend Family Entertainment, Category:WikiProject UK Theme Parks, Category:WikiProject Universal Parks & Resorts and Category:WikiProject Walt Disney World

– they all should be included in the discussions too.

Personally, I would support their renaming simply because I don't think we'll ever see them return as fully-fledged projects. They would all be renamed to the format used with other categories which is Category:Universal Parks & Resorts task force. Themeparkgc  Talk  06:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Whilst it has been a while, I started a CFD here. Please comment on the discussion. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Amusement Parks for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The former Bell's Amusement Park in Tulsa had a history of controversies when it was open, and so it is perhaps not surprising that the article also has had a contentious editing history, with recurrent POV issues and edits deleting large amounts of what other editors may deem to be properly sourced and relevant content. Input from editors with experience on amusement park articles would be appreciated. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to insert a Signpost tag such as the one I inserted at:

) 15:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Dom497 (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@Dom497:, thanks for the speedy action. BTW there are comments at the bottom of the article that someone from this project may want to address. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Buzzybeeride.JPG has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This park is out of business though efforts have been made to bring it back; I believe it belongs under this project.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Amusement parks, active or defunct, or somewhere in between, definitely belong in the project. --McDoobAU93 21:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone. An article about a ride,

) 23:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You've got it. I took a look at it and it needs work, for sure (way too detailed), but there does appear to be some independent reporting. This should be a keeper. I've watchlisted it and will do whatever I can. --McDoobAU93 21:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@Themeparkgc, Astros4477, McDoobAU93, and JlACEer:In the recent Signpost report about this wikiproject, it was questioned whether State fairs fell under this project. I would assume so, but none of the articles (in the link I put before) have the tagging for this project. So my question is, does state fairs fall under this project?--Dom497 (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I would say yes, it looks like those articles were just never tagged.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Only thing would be where would these fit in our importance scheme? Most amusement parks have been labelled mid, with amusement rides being labelled low. I'd consider a state fair to be less important than an amusement park, but, as it stands low importance articles form the majority of the project. This is probably a discussion for another time though. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

@Themeparkgc, Astros4477, McDoobAU93, and JlACEer: I agree with low-importance. Do we agree?--Dom497 (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd say anything about state fairs (both the parent article and individual fair articles) would be low-importance since the attraction midways are only a portion of the overall fair experience. Having just attended the North Georgia State Fair here near Atlanta, the midway is definitely a big part of it but it doesn't really define it in the classical sense. --McDoobAU93 21:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that too.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 00:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

@Themeparkgc, Dom497, McDoobAU93, and JlACEer:The project has many roller coaster articles that are GAs, I would like to start working on amusement park articles. It would be hard to get some to GA but I think they are a very important part of the project. Before I start on this, I think we should discuss a format we could use, similarly to what we've done for roller coasters. There will be minor differences between articles but I'd like to hear your ideas.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The project has three park articles which are GA or FA: Cedar Point, Idlewild and Soak Zone, and WhiteWater World. Whilst I don't have time to fully respond at the moment, I think the general form of History (ownership, management, additions), Attractions (by themed area or classification), Other stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere, and Reception (reviews, GTA, attendance) is a good one to follow. I also think avoiding lists and tables is also a good attribute in an article (the latter can be good if it is supported by prose). Anyway, when I get a chance later, I might expand on this. Themeparkgc  Talk  05:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of tables in these articles. Each park section can be described in prose without getting into the minutiae of when attractions were added, who built them, etc. A "Timeline" section would be OK to document when attractions were added/removed. Is there a graphical version that could work for this? --McDoobAU93 21:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with McDoobAU93, afterall, some parks have a "list of insert park name attractions" article that provide a full list of the attractions at each park.--Dom497 (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why traveling shows/carnivals haven't been considered for inclusion in the project? As the true forerunners of amusement parks and the operators of the midways at state fairs (which have been incorporated into the project), it seems more than logical that they be included. From the merry-ferries of the early days to today's multi-unit enterprises, they've been an integral part of the amusement ride industry - some amusement parks evolved from what began as traveling shows and, occasionally, it's gone the other way - such as New England's Dean & Flynn Fiesta Shows, which originated from the now defunct Salisbury Beach amusement park. Irish Melkite (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If you look 5 topics up (called "State Fairs") you will see that this has already been discussed. I was going to start adding the articles to this project but I've been busy with school and haven't really gotten a chance yet.--Dom497 (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Dom, Had read that but, as I referenced above, I understood it to be focused on the presence of the traveling shows specifically at state fairs (and, presumably, county fairs). Traveling shows/carnivals exist in a big way outside of state fair venues. There are already articles titled Traveling Carnival (US oriented) and Traveling Funfair (UK oriented), neither of which show any sign of having been brought under the umbrella of this project portal - which is what prompted me to raise the subject.Irish Melkite (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm suspicious of Pleasure Island (Borger, Texas amusement park). It turns up absolutely zero hits on Google Books or Google News, and all of the hits online appear to be rehashed from Wikipedia, or pages full of gibberish that have nothing to do with "Pleasure Island" or "Borger". In short, I've found literally zero proof that this place even existed, with only a couple memories from the IP on the talk page keeping me from writing this off as a hoax. Can anyone locate any proof that this place was ever real? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: I didn't look too terribly hard, but I didn't see any reliable sources either. There was a Pleasure Island that opened in 1959 in Boston, MA, but I didn't see anything that said for sure if a sister park existed in Texas. Even if one or two reliable sources do exist, it's probably not enough to justify an entire article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Could someone here from this project discuss recent category creations by User:Earflaps?

• Category:Chessington World of Adventures
  • Category:Chessington World of Adventures attractions
  • Category:Chessington World of Adventures rides
    • Category:Chessington World of Adventures past rides
  • Category:Chessington World of Adventures shows
• Category:Thorpe Park attractions
  • Category:Thorpe Park roller coasters
• Category:Rides designed by John Wardley
• Category:Gardaland
  • Category:Gardaland rides

I'm not suggesting these categories be deleted (although I did nominate Category:Thorpe Park attractions at CfD), but these creations go beyond the current scheme of the project based on Category:Amusement rides by amusement park. If this should continue and be encouraged, then maybe the establishment of such a scheme should be put in place for existing categories as well. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I personally would prefer the following structure per

CFDS-C2C

:

• Category:Chessington World of Adventures
• Category:Chessington World of Adventures past rides » Category:Former Chessington World of Adventures attractions
• Category:Thorpe Park
  • Category:Thorpe Park roller coasters » Category:Roller coasters at Thorpe Park
• Category:Rides designed by John Wardley
• Category:Gardaland

Themeparkgc  Talk  00:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Most of my decisions with making the categories came from imitation, not hard knowledge, so I apologize if any of the naming creates an inconvenience. I'm not sure how relevant this is, but I did prioritize having the park name at the beginning of related park categories (i.e. 'Gardaland rides' instead of 'Rides at Gardaland'), so that the list of related cats all pop up faster when you use hotcat, and more people can realize a category exists. But perhaps I'm overestimating how many people use hotcat, which is very possible; I tend to edit logged in. Earflaps (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, as an aside; I've seen pages with italicized names for unique rides (mostly roller coasters, sometimes other attractions), and like that helps distinguish from themed area names; but is it normal, or an aberration? Earflaps (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"Avatar Land" was never used as an official title for the upcoming area, it was only used by the media. The more appropriate title for the article would be "Pandora", as it's the name of the moon shown in the film and many (including James Cameron himself) are dubbing the area Pandora. BLOCHOS (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)BLOCHOS

The article

because of the following concern:

After a good faith search, there are no reliable sources for this. The term is used in a couple of theme park forums and that appears to be it.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ManicSpider (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to join this wikiproject.Wackyike (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@Wackyike: Welcome to the project. There are no restrictions to membership, so of course you can join. Just add your username to the list here and let any of us know if you have any questions. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I know there is a consensus that RCDb is reliable, but it wasn't on the RSN.Wackyike (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Wackyike: I never even knew the RSN existed! RCDB was determined reliable within this WikiProject, not RSN. :) --Dom497 (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC).

Hello,

I am researching Amusement parks and I am trying to find information on yearly revenue or a possible way to categorize the parks based on size. Can any effort be made to include information on if a park is publicly traded, privately held, or any kind of demographic information for comparison purposes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.183.234 (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It may be time to review the Standards policy governing this WikiProject, specifically in regards to article structure. For amusement parks, the following is suggested:

==Themed areas==
===<Zone-1>===
* Information about all of the attractions in that zone
* Information about all of the food & beverage shops in that zone
* Information about all of the merchandise shops in that section
* Information about all of the characters that appear for photo opportunities in that section

Please read

(for those with little time, just read TransporterMan's comments towards the bottom). There are good reasons to modify this section to comply with Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Only items with enduring, historical significance should be mentioned in amusement park articles. Editors shouldn't be encouraged to list all attractions and venues within a park, simply because they are mentioned in a few reliable sources (and let's face it, more often than not, the only source is the park's website). Instead of "List of attractions", sections should be called "Notable attractions". A visitor who wishes to see a complete list can simply visit the park's website using the link in the infobox or "External links" section. And certainly, we don't need to list food and merchandise shops.

It will be tough for some editors to willingly remove some of the hard work already put into these articles, but it would be best to stop the bleeding now rather than later. What does everyone else think? --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

When I first read the standards page when I first "signed up" for this WikiProject, I laughed. I don't think I've ever followed them. They have never been updated (2010) and knowing how we write articles today, the standards are out of date. So I think its a good idea not only to revise amusement parks but rather all the standards to better reflect how we structure articles today.--Dom497 (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, these standards are laughable and severely outdated, but a lot of articles written and updated even today include attractions that are not considered notable by Wikipedia's standards. There are quite a few editors (myself included) that have been listing all attractions in a park simply because the park is notable, without giving any thought to the attraction itself. Browse any amusement park article and you'll see an indiscriminate list of attractions. The question is whether or not these should be more limited in scope. TransporterMan makes a good case why they should be. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Amusements parks have always been a touchy part of the project. I totally agree, those guidelines are way out of date. There is no reason shops or food stands should be listed on here. When I started on Wikipedia, the very first thing I did was go through every Cedar Fair park and list every attraction as many were out of date and that has clearly been the weakness of the project in the past and currently. We have a general layout for roller coaster articles and that is where much of the success of this project has been. I am in favor of not having a "full" list of attractions, but I think the problem will arise of what are "notable attractions".-- Astros4477 (Talk) 02:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a contributor to this project, but can offer an outsider's opinion, and agree that things like food shops and merchandise shops (which can quickly change) are trivial. Perhaps

Avalanche (Pleasure Beach Blackpool) and should be deleted/merged to their respective park unless they have significant third-party coverage. --Animalparty-- (talk

) 01:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Those are two great examples. Neither deserves its own article on the basis alone that it's a roller coaster. An article's subject needs to have significant third-party coverage that shows it has enduring significance and wasn't a short-term buzz in the news per

WP:NRV. To address the earlier comments from Astros4477, the project as a whole suffers from a lack of manpower. There's no doubt that if we can start merging/deleting articles that don't meet notability standards, the workload will be more manageable. You're right that there will be some instances where editors may disagree on "what is notable", so we should start with the obvious offenders first. --GoneIn60 (talk

) 16:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@

this article is an "offender"?--Dom497 (talk

) 19:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion it is. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have always felt that rides/roller coasters that are mass produced should not have their own article. For example, no Boomerang should have its own article.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, that is something our group has discussed before. The new point being made is that even a unique roller coaster that isn't mass-produced may not meet notability standards, and therefore, wouldn't deserve its own article either. One example of this might be Cedar Creek Mine Ride at Cedar Point. While it may deserve a passing mention in the Cedar Point article, there's is nothing really notable about it, as it lacks significant coverage in secondary sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

General comment addressing several earlier points; I don't necessarily think it would be wise to say all food/retail facts about an area shouldn't be included. I personally think it's overkill to list every venue, especially ones that change every few years, but generalizations, like "the plaza area is primarily focused around a food court, with a large number of merchandising and retail shops instead of rides, while 'area b' only has one restaurant and several large roller coasters", can help basically differentiate the areas. How many specific details are included I'd say depends on the page, I'm not sure where to suggest drawing that line myself. Earflaps (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should not simply list out every ride, show, attraction, food stand, and gift shop in the article. If something is notable in the land, it should be included, but the popcorn cart on Main Street USA at Magic Kingdom doesn't need to be included.FirstDrop87 (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A possible place to direct interested editors is WikiTravel, or Wikivoyage, which are travel guides, not encyclopedias, and where more trivial but useful information can be included. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Listing every ride

First, I updated the DRN link in

) 08:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the amusement industry related pages have suffered from too many people wanting to create a page just for the sake of creating. I really think we do need to start eliminating articles that don't meet the criteria for notability. I would, however, like to see at least every ride listed on the park main page. We certainly don't need every food stand, shop and show, but an actual ride is usually notable enough for inclusion, even the flat rides I have found the pages here to be very useful particularly when the manufacturer and year of install is listed and I would hate to see Wikipedia lose all that information.—JlACEer (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

TransporterMan makes a good case why we shouldn't feel compelled to list every ride:

What is currently in a theme park has not yet established itself as being of enduring significance merely because of its existence even if that existence can be supported with a reliable source and even if the theme park is itself a significant or even famous park. (Remember that, per the

NOTNEWS

policy...Part of the problem with focusing on what's currently there is this...Things often come in with enough of a media bang to be verifiable, but go away with no verifiability at all. That causes current-attractions lists to be vulnerable to being out of date...since all challenged edits in WP need to be verifiable, things can get stuck in such lists with no real way to remove them...The best practice would be for theme park articles to limit their attractions list to just those which have proven to be of such major significance that their removal is almost certainly going to be reported in reliable sources.

After reading this, I couldn't help but agree with this core part of his argument. Coverage in reliable sources can be the result of heavy marketing and not the result of enduring historical significance. When a ride lacks this significance, there's a good chance nothing is reported when it's removed. Only relying on the park's website for this information limits us to one source, which can be easily challenged by the verifiability policy and creating an issue similar to the one TransporterMan became involved in on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. It doesn't necessarily do readers justice to keep current, complete lists of rides when they can simply visit the park's main site for that information. Mirroring it here is a waste of time and leads to conflicts. If editors are concerned about losing the information, an option to consider is moving the complete lists to WikiVoyage, a sister project where the information is more than welcome. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I will say, in defense of JlACEer's argument, that listing large manufactured rides with permanent installations, with year, etc., when that information is available, is useful in the most unexpected ways. Not to say every ride is notable as an independent topic, but I would hate to see a grand culling of information based on a new standard, at least if its not thought out. Also, I will say that most theme park pages are woefully unreferenced, and its unfortunately likely to stay that way. With that in mind, trying to independently reference and determine the notability of every single ride listed on the main theme park pages seems...well, lofty? Just having the references to show their manufacturing info and date is already a lot of work. Being more general about whats included might be necessary for sheer practicality; some other rule of thumb, perhaps?

About foodstands and such, it occurred to me a few days back. This might be a good way of looking at it:

1. . Is the information useful to someone who will never visit the theme park? (keep!)
2. . Is the information useful only to someone who is visiting, and needs help navigating/finding food/bathrooms/etc? (move to Wikivoyage!)

Navigational/logistical information, I believe, should probably be mostly left out, except where it helps explain something about a specific notable feature (whether that be ride, area, etc.). I dunno. Is there a way this could be clarified? Earflaps (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand your concern about the "lofty" effort that would be required to clean these articles up, but we should still try to agree on an approach that will stop the bleeding and allow the wound to heal over time. The proposed litmus test – determining who the information is useful to – may be a good place to start, but it can't replace or supersede Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (see

WP:CONLIMITED

). If an attraction lacks the coverage needed in reliable, secondary sources, then by Wikipedia's standards, it shouldn't be included in an article regardless of the its perceived usefulness. We should at least be able to agree on that.

I think the harder question to answer is what we do with attractions that have sufficient coverage during their introduction, but will undoubtedly lack "enduring" significance and future coverage. Examples that come to mind are small water park slides, small flat rides, and pay-per-ride attractions (slingshot, go-karts, etc.). At some point we need to draw a line, because trying to remove these when they're gone is sometimes difficult if not impossible without original research. I'm not sure what the best approach to resolving this concern is, but we need to decide if listing every attraction is really worth the risk. Should we consider getting away from the typical "Current attractions" naming scheme, and instead move towards something smaller in scope such as "Notable attractions" or "Major attractions"? I thought that would be a good compromise, but it seems we're split on that proposal. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent analalogy :b If I may ask out of confusion, though - understand applying

go-karts and bumper cars

."

Oh, and kind of tangent: do ride height limitations seem trivial to anyone else? I'm torn, seems bout half of pages seem to have them, while other pages have them deleted. Earflaps (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes,

WP:NOTGUIDE. --GoneIn60 (talk

) 13:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the guide aspect. Do you know if height limits have some special interest to roller coaster enthusiasts? Or maybe its a good way to differentiate childrens rides from adult rides; but from my non-expert pov, at least, it seems only relevant to visitors. Also, here's something else I'd been wondering; redundancy of information. Oftentimes ride details from a "current rides" section are mirrored in the area sections, and I don't think that's necessarily ideal; I would generally think that ride details are better relegated to the graphs and lists where they can be scanned and easily updated, while area sections stay more general. Earflaps (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Generally, there's nothing wrong with mentioning a notable ride in both prose and a corresponding list. For example, a section detailing an area of an amusement park might have 5-10 notable rides listed in a chart. Its summary may talk about the area's history as well mentioning several of those rides again in prose. So there are definitely times when it's appropriate. However, not every ride in the list needs to be mentioned in prose, otherwise the list becomes unnecessary! --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been honestly trying to stay out of this conversation about the whole "notable/not notable" thing because there will never be an end to it. If I understand everything I've read, the way this conversation should end is a clear guide/definition of what amusement ride is notable is which is not. Do I think we will ever reach this conclusion? Absolutely not. The word "notable" means so many things to every person that there is no way we will all agree. Until we figure out what is notable and what is not, I'm backing away from improving any articles within this WikiProject as I don't need to be wasting my time improving an article only to have it deleted, unless the topic is clearly notable.--Dom497 (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Basically I don't think there should be a line between what rides can be included on a main page; no distinction between non-notable or notable. However, any editor paying attention should be able to discern when it is overkill to list them all, for the sake of making a page readable. For large pages, it might be wise to separate the sections for 'major rides' and 'minor rides': perhaps clump minor rides together in a small simple list, not a detailed one, or sprinkle minor rides as mentions in the prose (perhaps in the ride timeline, but probably more generally in the area sections). However, I think that including every ride should definitely not be required. Earflaps (talk)

I do have to agree with you Earflaps. If a list of rides is included then every ride at the park has the right to be on that list. If the list is large, then it should be moved to its own page linked from the main page. Another place rides can simply be listed is in a timeline of a park that has a long history and many changes. I feel since this list changes from year to year, there should also be a list of defunct rides preferably on its own page. In the pros section of ride history, obviously not every ride needs to be mentioned in detail just as every ride does not need its own wiki page but that should not effect the actual ride list. I've found that ride lists that work good include a Name, pic, Year opened, Manufacture/Model, Description, reffs. The description field by default should be a short with type of ride, previous names and locations and basic features a rider can expect that can be covered by the reff column. Any extended description would need additional reffs and rides with large descriptions and 'notable' facts can the be easy to make into their own pages at that time. Most of this is already implemented for example on Cedar Point or Kings Island. --Nickvet419 (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Instead of a 'notable rides', section, or current, even, I think 'major' would be a good pick. Except in rare cases the ride list is unlikely to be comprehensive, so it should apply in most cases. About determining how many rides to include (what's major? what's minor?), I would say use your judgement as an editor. Weigh keeping the list to a reasonable size. If it grows overlarge, consider wp:splitting the section to a separate "Rides at 'Theme Park'" page, with only a fraction of those rides included in the list on the main page. If you are worried about minor rides not being up to date, on the section or split page consider putting this tag:

This Wikipedia page needs to be updated. Please help update this Wikipedia page to reflect recent events or newly available information. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page.

Ok, here goes. Please make it better (edit it directly if you like), it's just a sloppy brainstorm. Earflaps (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

==Theme park history==
*Events, changes in ownership, major ride changes/retheming

==Major rides==
*List format, optional opening paragraph
**List includes: Name, Picture (opt.), Date, Type, Producer/Manufacturer, Area, Short description, Rating
**Don't include: height limitations

===Past rides===
*'''Include''': any ride, at least name, type, date

==Ride timeline (optional)==
*List format
*List includes: dates

==Themed areas==
===<Zone-1>===
*History of zone
*Information about all of the major attractions in that zone.
Editor determines what features are major based on their research.
Minor attractions may be mentioned particularly if they relate to theming, etc.
* Acceptable features to mention: major restaurants and stores,
major rides, regular character appearances, events
*Avoid: kiosk and navigational information, minor details that change regularly, minutia

==Events==

==Transportation, lodging==

==?==

Not sure if this is the proper place for this, so I apologize in advance if it is not. I have also added a comment (copied below) at the Knott's Soak City talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knott%27s_Soak_City).

Can anyone please help?

Hello,

I see that someone requested a move earlier that was eventually denied. I am asking again to please forward the Knott's Soak City (Chula Vista page ONLY) page to the Aquatica San Diego page.

Knott's Soak City in Chula Vista NO LONGER EXISTS. In addition, Google's Knowledge Graph is apparently pulling _some_ data from the Soak City page (ie. the name Knott's Soak City) and then mixing with other meta data we provide (phone, physical address) via other web channels.

The result is a mish-mash Knowledge Graph listing that is very confusing to users: https://www.google.com/search?q=aqautica+san+diego&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

We realize the value of an archival page for Knott's Soak City, but keeping the current page as is - while working within the filter bubble of Wikipeia - is not working in the real World.

I would ask again please for your help and expertise in finding some sort of solution that allows Google to pull the correct data to Knowledge Graph and allows for an archival listing of Knott's Soak City Chula Vista.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.227.205.1 (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.227.205.1 (talk)

@Themeparkgc, McDoobAU93, Astros4477, and JlACEer: and all the other members of this WikiProject: I was just thinking that maybe we could add inflation to the attraction/roller coaster infobox's as I find it an interesting fact for the articles. I've added it to SheiKra and Millennium Force as examples. Thoughts?--Dom497 (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic idea! --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

To me, a bit excessive and bound to lead to

trouble or mischief. But whatever consensus decides works for me. --McDoobAU93

20:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm with McDoob here. I think some of the infoboxes are already cluttered enough as it is. Adding this information converts a one-line field into three lines. If you want to include inflation calculations maybe the article body would be a better place to do it? Themeparkgc  Talk  22:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I have created a new task force: SeaWorld Entertainment. It covers Busch Gardens, SeaWorld and all other parks/rides owned by SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc.--Dom497 (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 11:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

A question regarding these polls [1] has just been asked on WP:RSN [2]. I have to say that I agree with the IP - the website looks self-published, and I can see no obvious reason why it should be seen as a reliable source, though it is cited in multiple articles. [3] Has the reliability of this source ever been discussed, and if so, where? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's the official website for the poll.--Dom497 (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it's still self-published. And the poll has no known scientific validity. The website provides no info whatsoever on the poll's sampling or procedures. Any doofus can conduct a poll; it doesn't mean the results are reliable or valid. 71.139.142.132 (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The poll (correct me if I'm wrong) appears to tally votes from the general public. Even if accurate, I don't think citing would add any real value to an article here. In film and video games, for example, only professional critic reviews are used as references. I don't see why it would be any different with roller coasters, especially since they are less accessible than media. Seems to me like there's a greater chance that votes are being tallied from individuals with limited experience that may have only been to one or two amusement parks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The population being sampled is not specified (Who's the target sample, experienced riders or novices?). The sampling frame is not specified (How were the respondents selected?) The polling methods aren't specified. We don't even know what question(s) was(were) being asked of the respondents (e.g., Is the coaster fun? Is it scary? Wild? Circuitous?) This web page tells us nothing useful whatsoever. Maybe use it as an EL, but not a source. 71.139.142.132 (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

From the looks of this, the poll appears to be nothing more than an internet vote that gets emailed to Mitch Hawker. Based on this info, I would have to say it should not be considered a reliable source. We deny Metacritic "user rankings" on the same basis. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, the questions asked are right here. Whether this poll stays in articles or not, I do not care.--Dom497 (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

As a side note: I stumbled across their older poll comparison and newer poll comparison summaries. While it seems like a reasonable alternative way to interpret the data, it still suffers from the same issue many other online polls have. Participants are "self-selected" not randomly selected. Any pollster will tell you that to get the best representation of a larger population, random sample selection is key to a good poll. Unfortunately, the good ideas generated from the Hawker poll are negated by this. You can apply all the best methods in the world on a set of data, but if the data isn't reliable to begin with, then what's the point? --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, certainly this is a

convenience sample, and no amount of post hoc algorithm tweaking can fix that. Still, although a representative sample is the goal, a simple random sample is not always the best way to achieve that (e.g., this, this, and this). Bottom line: the poll is pretty amateurish. 71.139.142.132 (talk

) 20:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

While this is probably going to make matters worse, since the Golden Ticket Awards are handed out by a published magazine with limited voting privileges, that would make it preferable to an Internet poll, correct? I know there's a lot of contention between what the Hawker poll and the GTAs come up with as their top rides (having just experienced El Toro and Bizarro SFNE for the first time, I can see where the GTAs can be both right and wrong), so this may not sit well either way. --McDoobAU93 18:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The GTAs tally votes from those that are known to be experts and/or extreme enthusiasts in the field. The Hawker poll makes zero distinction regarding who can vote and gathers votes from all willing participants. That difference alone exposes the unreliability of the Hawker poll. But aside from the methods involved, as you said, the GTAs are published and referenced by many reliable sources. The Hawker poll lacks that kind of support. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The Hawker poll certainly has more fans in the coaster-enthusiast community, but we shouldn't be basing our edits on what the community thinks, hence

WP:RS. --McDoobAU93

18:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Silly season is coming ...

As we go through July and August, theme park aficionados know we start getting rumblings and teases about the parks' plans for the upcoming season. This is also when fans that are new to Wikipedia start appearing to add their own speculation, almost always without proper sourcing. Consider this a general "call to vigilance" for the next several weeks to keep an eye out for speculation, wishful thinking and, well, general silliness in these articles, but remember that these fans

03:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Roller coaster names

As I read through various roller coaster articles, I see some whose names are italicized, such as Dare Devil Dive, and others that aren't, such as Wild Eagle. I remember this question came up before regarding why roller coaster names were italicized at all; it's apparently an ACE convention used in their publications, and since some of the earlier articles here were quite probably written/started by ACErs, the convention carried over. The question is, do we want to adopt this ourselves for articles on or mentioning roller coasters? Either way, we do need to standardize them to one form or the other. Personally, I'm for the italicization, but let's see where consensus is. --McDoobAU93 18:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – I'm in the camp that believes they shouldn't be used for roller coaster names. We should stick with the style guidelines outlined in
  Associated Press Stylebook are in agreement, since this is what's typically taught in English courses. So at this time, I don't see the ACE convention as reason enough to make an exception for roller coasters on Wikipedia. --GoneIn60 (talk
  ) 18:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• Use Italics (though just rides with unique design or theming, not 'types' of rides like Enterprise, unless that specific ride is also titled Enterprise by its owners) - Ah, thank you for addressing this McDoob, I'd been thinking of asking myself. I had assumed roller coasters were originally italicized because trains are as well (see Cascadian (train)), then just assumed that convention branched into other types of rides for consistency. That aside, I think italics on rides could help the reader. The theme park pages are filled with silly, very silly names that people won't immediately recognize; characters, areas, rides, foods, everything sounds %$*ffing ridiculous. Scanning a page, it can be really difficult to tell what's what. Since areas aren't italicized, this means that only attractions like shows, movies, and unique rides stand out to the eye. But hey, either way works I suppose, so long as it's consistent. Earflaps (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)