Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RanDom 404 (talk | contribs) at 17:29, 23 May 2022 (→Adding POVs to ride articles: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject Amusement Parks
Main Talk Participants Standards Assessment Featured Content Popular Pages Templates Category Collaboration Task Forces Newsletters
WikiProject iconAmusement Parks Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@JlACEer: See Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Thunder_River_(ride) ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Ednör_–_L'Attaque ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

AfD: Canyon Blaster

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

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)[reply]

  • In favor. Sounds like a good solution.—JlACEer (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)][reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Amusement_Parks&oldid=1089416461"