Talk:Steel Vengeance

Comments from PointBuzz.com founder

DisneyFan22, you should opt to discuss why you keep removing content that is reliably sourced (diff1), even after I've left you a message on your talk page (diff2). This is disruptive and should be discussed at this point. While it is true that PointBuzz.com is an unofficial website, they are often cited by reliable sources for receiving first-hand information from park officials. This level of "trust" by journalists indicate that the unofficial site carries weight as a reliable source, especially when their comments are published by other reliable sources. If you would like to challenge this, state your reasons here and refrain from sparring in the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is fine to cite blogs for citations. However, including commentary from them in an article is a stretch - it comes off as promoting them more than contributing to the topic. It would perhaps make sense on Wikinews, but does not seem to make as much sense on Wikipedia. Also, what is being added is a rumor and theory - not a factual statement - which in itself seems to disqualify it from inclusion. This person's opinion is very interesting to fans, but hardly encyclopedic in nature to people wanting to learn facts. Also, the founder of a blog is not a reliable source for something like attendance dropping unless they are citing park data (which does not appear to be the case here - it comes off more as a personal opinion). Realistically the only reliable source for that is Cedar Point, unless PointBuzz was independently counting riders over the past several years...which seems highly unlikely. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 21:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Varnent: First of all, THANK YOU for engaging in a discussion. The absence of one with the other editor was becoming frustrating! There really is no harm in leaving the content in the article while we have a discussion, but I do understand why you removed it.

@GoneIn60: I appreciate you engaging in a good faith discussion on the topic. I have a lot of respect for your work on the wiki, and am genuinely trying to offer a fresh perspective on the topic. I am surprised, I will admit, that you are both defending the credibility of blog's founder and pointing out that the community does not treat blogs favorably - I was actually trying to throw that topic some favor by suggesting I personally disagree with that consensus. ;) That said, I am as always willing to concede I could absolutely be wrong about this, and look forward to seeing if we can come to some consensus. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 03:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Though I intend to respond fully below, I wanted to point out here that while it appears to be a contradiction on the surface, my position isn't that this is just some blog founder making comments. I believe he and others that work for PointBuzz.com have formed a direct, unofficial relationship with Cedar Fair and are often privy to details before their official release, effectively making Putz an industry insider with valued connections. I will provide examples soon. So while I agree that blogs in general should be avoided, this isn't about some blog. It's about the credibility of a widely-recognized entity that just so happens to have been a founder of a blog. Since we are not citing his blog, I don't see a contradiction. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

"Personally, I think it is fine to cite blogs for citations."

Really? The community's stance on this is quite the opposite, as indicated by WP:BLOGS. They are "largely not acceptable as sources" with the sole exception being newsblogs written by professionals, and even then, they should only be cited with caution. Regardless of how you feel, this is not a relevant point. The cited source we are trying to use here is not a blog. It is a reputable newspaper publication written by an author who has extensively covered news about Cedar Point. There are probably dozens of articles (if not hundreds) cited on Wikipedia by this author. The material in question is the author's "interview" with a known expert in the industry, Jeff Putz. We can clearly rationalize that if he wasn't an expert, or if his opinion didn't carry any weight, then this article (or any article for that matter) wouldn't have bothered to cover it.

Hence the word "personally". ;) --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 03:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

"...what is being added is a rumor and theory - not a factual statement - which in itself seems to disqualify it from inclusion."

I invite you to closely read WP:CRYSTAL again. Speculative comments are not banned in whole on Wikipedia. In fact, it says, "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included...". Putz is being used as a "recognized entity in the field" by a reliable source, and therefore his commentary qualifies for inclusion.

I would be willing to agree that Putz is a recognized entity in the field if he was notable enough to have an article. I disagree that he meets this exception. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 03:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not aware of such a requirement in any policies or guidelines. WP:N, for example, only covers which topics qualify as having standalone articles. It does not cover content within an article, meaning that significant information supported by reliable sources can exist within articles, even when the source in question does not qualify to have its own article on Wikipedia. I don't believe this is a standard we need to adhere to here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

As you cited above, the policy around speculation says "reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field" - which to me then speaks to how we assess a source, and sadly, like we have discussed, blogs are not considered reliable sources. I am not sure that the founder of a fan blog, no matter how strong their connections to the staff might be, are "recognized entities in a field". I cannot find examples of him being recognized by the industry for his expertise, or cited as an industry expert - perhaps beyond that one article, but even there it gives the blog as his credentials. By this measure, there is no difference between the WSJ commenting on the iPhone and the AppleInsider blog - when in reality I think there is in fact a stark difference between the expertise levels of those two entities. I think it is hard for WP to argue that blogs are not reliable sources, but their founders are experts in the field - those conclusions seem to be in direct conflict to me. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 16:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

"Also, the founder of a blog is not a reliable source for something like attendance dropping..."

Generally, I would tend to agree with this; we shouldn't use numbers arbitrarily from a weak source. However, there are two problems with applying that to this situation. First, Putz wasn't the only entity implying that the ride's popularity was in decline. The article's author also stated, "Lines for the ride are generally short". Second, this is written as if it's common knowledge and not as if it's the opinion of one person. If you challenge this, then you're challenging the credibility of a well-cited author and newspaper as well.

If that is the case, I see no problem mentioning this issue and citing it with those sources. I think my problem is framing it as a commentary from him. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 03:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

As a compromise on this point, what about language that talks about the declining popularity of the ride, cites this article, and the others that you mentioned. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 03:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

"This person's opinion is very interesting to fans, but hardly encyclopedic in nature to people wanting to learn facts."

Of all the statements above, this is probably the one I disagree with the most. Have you ever visited a book or film article? If so, you would have probably noticed the extensive coverage surrounding a work's critical reception. Opinions by experts in the field are all over Wikipedia, and being an opinion does not make it unencyclopedic. Furthermore, you are making your own assumption that it only benefits fans. What about someone who heard it on the news and landed on Wikipedia looking for more information? Do they have to be a fan to find this information useful? A strong argument can be made to show that it is mere, unfounded conjecture to suggest that it only pertains to fans.

Look, I can understand why some might feel this content is unnecessary. But let's call it what it is: an opinion by an editor. Let's not make the wild stretch that this is somehow in violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

One big problem is that books or films, as works of art, are by their nature subject to interpretation and opinion. Those opinions on the art is a part of the knowledge around that subject. The same is not as true for speculation around a product - which is essentially what a roller coaster is. Perhaps if this was in a review section - which is generally where those outside comments appear. Also, I am again not sure that I would qualify the founder of this blog as an expert in the field. They are, at best, a commentator on the field. Regarding who it would benefit, I am not sure that is the point of an encyclopedia. Information around MANY things not allowed on Wikipedia might be interesting to the reader, but are not encyclopedic. The reality is that ultimately this is speculation on a product that will be clarified in the future. It is not something abstract, like the meaning of a film's ending, which could remain abstract forever. I would argue that offering this information is the responsibility of a news or fan outlet, and not an encyclopedia. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 03:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to ponder a compromise on this line: "PointBuzz.com co-founder Jeff Putz believes Cedar Point will partner with a company like Rocky Mountain Construction to refurbish the ride, recalling a similar announcement by the park regarding Mantis in 2014." I think my problem is that the words used are very speculative in nature, rather than fact based - "a company like", "recalling a similar announcement" are phrases more connected to speculation. The reality is that we still do not factually know if this is the direction of the ride. Ironically, I happen to personally believe it is, but that is pure speculation based on viewing the ride this past weekend. I can concede the second part of the edit in question has value, if framed differently (in my opinion), but I am struggling with this part being anything more than speculation and rumor. If Putz was a retired Cedar Point build executive, or a notable expert in that field (a Google search is not showing much beyond the blog itself), I could maybe see the argument for exception. However, he is basically a news reporter, and I am not familiar of other examples of reporters speculating on future directions of products being included in articles. I recognize it being included in a newspaper adds weight, but as I said before, speculation being in fan sites or news outlets seems far more logical than being in a neutral fact-based knowledge resource. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 04:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. It really is appreciated! I think you've brought up quite a few valid points I hadn't considered. I'll take some time to look them over closely later in the day before I respond in detail. My initial thoughts are that published speculation by a reliable source can very well be included in a marketing or development section of a product's article, but often these are remarks made by someone who works for the company that is building, developing, or branding the product in question. On the other hand, I'm not sure that said "entity" necessarily needs to qualify for having a standalone article in order to make an appearance in another article's body. I'm not aware of a policy that supports or demands that requirement. Also, despite the fact that we will eventually know the outcome or direction of the issue at hand, the point of including early speculation is that it documents the atmosphere surrounding the fate of a new or retired product before its future is known. The state of the unknown (purposely being fueled by Cedar Point in this situation) is considered encyclopedic in my opinion. It demonstrates historical perspective, even if only covering a slice or moment in time. Perhaps we'll disagree there, but I'll take some additional time to consider possible areas where we can reach a compromise. We may also want to consider notifying the WikiProject if we are unable to reach a consensus, to see if additional opinions can help move us in the right direction. I am also willing to concede that I may very well be in the minority on this one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I also concede in advance that I could be in the minority, and will certainly go with consensus if we get to that. :) I can appreciate the point about speculation itself creating an environment worth noting, I think it is including the actual speculation itself I am struggling with. For example, I know when this type of debate has come up around iPhones, the outcome has been to wait until the official details are announced. I would argue the speculation around iPhones is similar and perhaps even more notable, but still does not result in us documenting that speculation before the details are announced by Apple. Perhaps a compromise is including that because CP has not stated they are tearing it down "has led to speculation around the ride structure's ultimate fate." or something along those lines that acknowledges the climate of speculation, but does not engage in the speculation. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 16:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

After putting a lot of thought into this, additional research, and taking your concerns into consideration, I've found myself agreeing with your position. While Putz is somewhat well-known locally in the region, as he is often cited by local newspapers the Toledo Blade and The Plain Dealer, it doesn't appear he is referenced in reliable sources in other regions across the country. Furthermore, the comments cited are almost always fan-based propaganda and rarely do they contain substantial insight within the industry as a whole. The comments are often just fluff added to an article in an attempt to show how fans are reacting to news, but there is nothing particularly scientific or even professional at times in the way he attempts to represent that aspect. It usually comes off as one man's opinion as opposed to the greater population.

Because the value added is minimal, I agree that we should refrain from quotes and mentioning him by name, and only make a one- or two-line summary statement regarding speculation when it benefits the article. In this case, we should consider adding a one-liner like you proposed, but it may not be necessary unless we have two or more sources making these claims, and it would help if at least one source was located outside of the region. Perhaps that is the ultimate litmus test; if a source outside of the region recognizes that the speculation exists, then we should feel compelled to include that somewhere in the article's body. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable metric regarding speculation. I personally think once facts are stated in local press, that is fine for inclusion (the reality being some details do not get interest beyond local area). However, for speculation, I think having a slightly higher bar makes sense to filter if it is recognized or not. I appreciate your thoughtful processing of this and that some civil on-wiki discussion resulted in a compromise. :) --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 16:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible RMC sources

Hello,

I was just wondering if we should include the likely chanced that Mean Streak will be getting the I Box Treatment similar to Twisted Colossus and The New Texas Giant. I do believe including this is logical, However, I will need to find a good article to back this up (Which I can get). But I don't want another disaster like the Tower Of Terror article that I added so I would like know if this should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marth The Hero King (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I cleaned up recent additions that covered this topic. We can mention it with appropriate sourcing, but it needs to be very brief and generalized like it is now. I imagine it won't be too long before we get a confirmation by the park. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which favors a long-term approach, unlike a basic talk forum that thrives on breaking news. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mean Streak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131125024355/http://www.martin-vleminckx.com/mva_web_3_027.htm to http://www.martin-vleminckx.com/mva_web_3_027.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mean Streak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120702055704/http://www.cedarpoint.com/blog-article/online-fun/Mean-Streak-is-less-Mean to http://www.cedarpoint.com/blog-article/online-fun/Mean-Streak-is-less-Mean
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160801185807/https://www.cedarpoint.com/events/things-to-do/events/Mean-Streak to https://www.cedarpoint.com/events/things-to-do/events/Mean-Streak
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120225164418/http://www.cedarpoint.com/rides/Roller-Coasters/Mean-Streak to http://www.cedarpoint.com/rides/Roller-Coasters/Mean-Streak

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Moving Article

Anybody who opposes the article being moved to the new name once the ride is announced should air their grievances here other wise the article will be moved once the name is revealed. MitchellLunger (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Just make sure we have the statements about the new name added to the article itself with proper references. Then move the article to the new name. Also don't forget to fix links from other articles like Cedar Point, and update their links as well. There is a link over to the left of the page called "What links here" that you can click on and see what other articles have the old links. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

We should be sure to preserve the coaster stats of Mean Streak, maybe even add a comparison like they did at Twisted Colossus. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 17:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 7 December 2017

Steel Vengeance (roller coaster) → Steel Vengeance – Only article that is called Steel Vengeance now. Do not sign this. MitchellLunger (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• So the Marvel comics cyborg was merged hmm. Lack of enthusiasm. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support a minor fictional character which gets no real-world coverage definitely is not the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, and I don't see any other potentially-notable topics by this name. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support disambiguation no longer necessary._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support per above, and also create a Steel Vengeance (character) redirect to the current target of Steel Vengeance and a hatnote on this article. This is what I had in mind when I AfC/R’d Banana Joe (character), a minor The Amazing World of Gumball character with the same name as the real radio personality Banana Joe. 165.91.12.221 (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)