Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Super Star, Freak Out and KMG Booster, night.jpg WikiProject Amusement Parks
Main Talk Standards Assessment Featured Content Templates Task Forces Collaboration Participants Newsletters Category Portal Popular Pages
WikiProject Amusement Parks (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Infobox template modifications for status field[edit]

Just an FYI that the infobox templates for attractions and roller coasters have been modified per the result of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 3#Status fields in attraction articles. The status fields should now all resolve to:

Under construction

I kept all the deprecated parameters in there, such as Testing and Under refurbishment, so that they would be linked to the correct status. Please let me know if you notice any issues with these changes. Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahecht, just remembered that you had these changes queued in your sandbox. If you get a chance, please look these changes over and feel free to suggest further changes. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@GoneIn60:  Done. I could've sworn I'd already made the change ages ago. Now "open" and "operating" map to Operating; "defunct", "closed", "sbno", and "standing but not operating" map to Closed; "under refurbishment", "technical rehearsals", "undergoing testing", and "under construction" map to Under construction; "removed", "demolished", and anything beginning with "relocated" or "in storage" map to Removed; "planned" and "announced" get passed through but added to Category:Attraction articles with announced status, and anything else gets passed through and added to Category:Attraction articles with custom statuses. --Ahecht (TALK
) 22:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Ahecht, I had already made most of those changes with this edit. One thing that's missing in your changes is "testing" which should map to Under construction. Also, I thought the idea was to prevent the use of Announced/Planned and other custom statuses. I think we can disregard the two categories you listed above, as anything outside of what we've defined goes against the RfC. Is there a way to only allow the status field to appear when a defined parameter is specified? If not, then we should keep the passthrough to custom statuses category, so that we can periodically go through those articles and clean them up. Right now, there are 84 articles showing there. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Also just noticed that when the multiple location template is used, Relocated is no longer a valid status. I believe in the RfC, we discussed leaving that alone for now and possibly discussing that template in a separate thread, but now all of those articles show Removed. Thought I'd mention it in case there's an easy fix. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@GoneIn60: I added "testing" -- that was an oversight. The template was always set up so that it passed through unrecognized values, and the modified template does the same. My instinct was to leave the current values as "better than nothing" until we've had a chance to clean up the two maintenance categories (we may have to manually run a script to purge or null edit all instances of the template to get everything to initially update). I created a separate category for announced/planned rides, since that was a previously accepted value that is now unrecognized, and it will allow us to more easily go through those articles and clean them up (especially since most of those rides may now be open and just not updated). Again, once we've cleaned up the existing articles, we can blank that as well.
As to the second point, the same sub-template is used for all locations, so it will take a little bit more work since we have to modify the attraction, roller coaster, and water ride templates, but I can work up a draft that takes it into account. --Ahecht (TALK
) 16:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. I figured it would take some tinkering to get it just right, and we're definitely making progress! A lot of articles using the Infobox roller coaster extend template have "Relocated to <new location>" for their status at old locations, but I think we can redirect them to just show as "Relocated". That will work in most situations, except maybe where there are multiple installations of a given coaster, and one was relocated but the others weren't. Knowing where it was relocated to would be a plus, but that may be more work than its worth. The article's prose should properly mention this in more detail. Thought I'd mention it though, as it's sure to come up in conversation at some point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and modified the template so that it will pass through any comment beginning with "relocated" or "moved to" unmodified if it's not the first location. That can easily be changed now if we want to standardize it as just "Relocated", but that would probably need another RFC since the previous one excluded that. --Ahecht (TALK
) 20:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting that. I checked a few articles, and that seems to have reverted them back to their original state. Is there any way to keep "Relocated to..." from causing the article to show up under the custom statuses category? Just a minor inconvenience, so no biggie if that's not possible. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Disregard that. I made a minor change to one that was showing up in the list and then it was removed from the custom category. May just take some time for those to drop off. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting statuses[edit]

@GoneIn60 and Ahecht: GoneIn60: thanks for the note on my talk page. The three of us have been passing each other for a while, and as we have some overlapping interests, we should agree on this and (probably) other issues. If my observations are correct, both you and Ahecht are more coaster guys than not. My expertise is themed entertainment, theme parks, and live shows, with almost no interest in coasters (sorry). To begin the discussion, I am reproducing a note I left for Alyssa Nutter when she was still an IP. This was on the Talk page of Pirates 4-D, and is a bit of a summary of my thinking on this issue as it applies to movies (Pirates 4-D) and special events (Six Flags Fright Fest).

We may have a bit of a semantics problem. It probably stems from the fact that the Infobox/Attractions was really more intended for physical entities, for example, roller coasters. An example: Six Flags New Orleans, after being demolished by Katrina, is still standing. A couple of its coasters were salvaged by Six Flags, and moved to other parks. That is "removed". The remaining coasters, too badly corroded to save, are still standing, so strictly speaking, they are not "removed", but "closed". The article Pirates 4-D is about a film. Films, being somewhat of an intangible entity, "close" but are not "removed". True, 4-D films require a specially-built theater, which could be removed. Take the Luxor for example. We know Pirates closed there. However, I do not find any replacement; it appears they removed the entire installation. That would be a good case for "removed". Now take Thorpe Park. Pirates closed there, and the theater stood empty for a while, but they have since opened a new 4-D film. This sounds like a case of "closed", and then populate the "replaced" field in the infobox. Another pretty clear one is Sea World Ohio. Pirates closed when the park was sold to Six Flags in 2001. The 4-D theater was subsequently demolished. Sounds like "removed". To my knowledge, the other venues are all still standing, with new films in them, making "closed" more accurate. Aside from the semantics, there still exists the pivotal problem, "prove it". While I know much of what I said is true, in many cases, citations are lacking. I can't even find the date Pirates actually closed at Luxor. Discussion? Oddjob84 (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC) [Note] Alyssa changed four venues to "removed"; besides being unsourced, 3 of the 4 are still standing, two with replacement films running.

In reading your prior discussion, my take on it seems mostly in line with yours. What do you think? Oddjob84 (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Oddjob84 and GoneIn60: I've been thinking for a while about what to do with the closed/removed status for shows, especially as the back-and-forth between Myk Streja and fills up my watchlist. When is a show considered "removed", especially if it is a seasonal show? If the show doesn't have a dedicated venue (such as a parade), would it technically be removed every time it ends? Should "on hiatus" be a legitimate status, or is it WP:NOTNEWS (it's certainly better than "under construction")? I'm starting to lean towards the idea of having a separate {{infobox amusement show}} template with no status parameter, just "premiered" and "last shown" dates ala {{infobox television}} ("last shown" is set to "present" unless the show hasn't been presented in over a year, and it is updated if the show comes back from hiatus). This template would cover stage shows, stationary film-based attractions, parades, "nighttime spectaculars", special events, festivals, etc. --Ahecht (TALK
) 20:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ahecht: I didn't realize that there was a crew already dedicated to the protection of those pages. I apologize for adding to your workload. Unless I'm told it's safe to go back to it, I'll stay out of the way. — Myk Streja (who?) 21:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Myk Streja: Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were doing anything wrong. Feel free to correct stuff as you see fit. --Ahecht (TALK
) 02:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ahecht: Oh, NOW you done it. Giving me pemission to do as a I please? <rubbing hands together vigorously> So, where did I leave those forceps... <loud metallic clattering ensues> — Myk Streja (who?) 02:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@GoneIn60 and Ahecht: Personally, I favor the KISS principle when it comes to this. The fewer changes to the infobox, the better. For that reason, I would favor the present box, with a few rules. For example, Six Flags Fright Fest could certainly stay "open" all year, I think users quickly get the idea it only runs at Halloween. Theme park shows usually run until they die; Waterworld has been operating since 1995. Some of the Batman shows at Six Flags parks ran for four months, but then came back for 3~5 years each summer. We could note in the article that they run seasonally. Mardi Gras at Universal Florida, essentially a parade, runs about 6 weeks in the spring. The Main Street Electrical Parade ran every day for 24 years. "Dynamite Nights" ran nightly for 12 years at USF. The Epcot International Food & Wine Festival is still running every fall. The ephemeral events, such as films, shows not in purpose-built theaters, and festivals would probably close eventually, but would almost never be removed (possible exception: see Luxor/Pirates 4-D example above). Purpose-built attractions might or might not be removed. The Miami Vice Stunt Show at USH was physically removed to make way for Waterworld, but Waterworld was built in the same hole in the ground. You could make a case for either "removed" or "closed and replaced by". In any case I don't think we should be overly influenced by / Alyssa Nutter, who is the same person, an outlier, and clearly determined to follow her own rules. Oddjob84 (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with a lot of the points being made here, but the best way forward is usually following WP:COMMONSENSE, which is what we'd expect new or inexperienced editors to naturally do when they may not be aware of the rules outlined in policies, guidelines, style manuals, or WikiProject discussions. The closer we can conform to using common sense, the less we'll have to police these articles. The first discussion we had surrounding infobox statuses, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 3#Status fields in attraction articles, shared the same goal of simplifying things. We've weeded out "under refurbishment" and "SBNO", and we've setup category flags that help us track when an amusement park article is using a custom status. It may not be perfect yet, but we've made some progress.
With that said, here's my take. When a show or parade is no longer on display, and the article topic is solely focused on that show or parade, then to me "Removed" still applies. A film or theme can be removed from its venue, even when the venue remains. Parades are a little trickier in that sense. When they commonly go on on hiatus for short periods of time, it wouldn't be very Wikipedian per WP:NOTGUIDE to constantly track their current status. We could either develop another infobox template as Ahecht suggests that doesn't contain a status (and uses dates for "Premiered", "Last shown" and "Retired"), or we can continue using the same template and just leave the status field blank. A third way forward here is to accept that "Removed" can still apply to a live show or parade. I can get behind any of those three, but further tweaking the statuses we have now in the current infoboxes would seem like a last resort. I'm open to other suggestions, however. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that in Oddjob84's Waterworld example above, it isn't all that different from say dark ride attractions that get revamped and rethemed over the years. Take Phantom Theater, Scooby-Doo and the Haunted Castle, and Boo Blasters on Boo Hill at Kings Island as another example. All three shared the same physical structure and Omnimover track system, but the retired themes are classified as "Removed". That's because their respective articles are about the theme itself and not so much the physical venue in which they reside. I would imagine this would apply to many of the shows, live entertainment, and parade articles as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Elisfkc, FirstDrop87, Adog104, Astros4477, McDoobAU93, Euphoria42 and Iblamefish who are some of the project's more active editors and participated in the last RfC.
While I don't favor a dedicated infobox for shows/movies/events, I can see where it makes good sense from a process standpoint. If that's the consensus, I'm on board. As to the closed/removed discussion, I think we are headed toward making it less understandable. If making it transparent to a new user is the goal, then consider this: in everyday English usage, no one would ever refer to a show or movie or special event as "removed". This term would be an imposed, specific bit of jargon on Wikipedia. I really think it obfuscates rather than illuminates. I favor the closed/replaced model. Lastly, seasonal events which can be expected to recur at least yearly, should be left in "open" status. Why make a bunch of additional work for ourselves? Oddjob84 (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
First to address your last comment about seasonal events, you are absolutely correct. The way most of us approach these articles now is to leave the status as "Operating" when an attraction is running on its normal operating schedule. So for example, take the seasonal amusement park Cedar Point. We don't change all the attraction articles to "Closed" when the park closes in the winter. We also don't change it to "Closed" for short-term maintenance closures that may only last days or weeks. They remain set to "Operating". A seasonal event shouldn't be treated any different. Unfortunately, there's no way to avoid drive-by editors that treat Wikipedia as a park guide or forum, who want up-to-the-minute status changes. I already spend way too much time undoing a lot of those drive-by edits. At least for roller coasters, we have RCDB we can reference in our reverts. That site uses the same methodology and only changes the status during long, drawn-out closures. Unfortunately, it's a tougher battle with other types of attractions.
As for closed/removed, I completely understand. That confusion is out there and it's what led to this discussion. "Removed" isn't the first thought that comes to mind either, but if I saw the status in an article, I'm not sure I'd question it in all situations. When an attraction is no longer at the amusement park or venue it existed in, I can understand that it's been removed. If we can't agree on that, then yes, a separate infobox that uses different statuses or no status at all is the best compromise. Also, I would be in no hurry to correct editors using "Closed" in the present infobox. To me, it's a minor detail changing it to "Removed"; there's little or no harm in leaving it as "Closed" in the short term. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
By the way, if I'm being completely honest, neither "Closed" or "Removed" would be the first status that comes to mind for shows/movies/parades/events. "Inactive" or "Retired" would be, with my choice between the two hinging on whether or not the attraction is permanently gone. Closed/Removed works to a certain extent, but Inactive/Retired makes a little more sense. Then again, we should still be aware of introducing too much WP:CREEP in our approach. Generating another infobox template might infringe upon that concept. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Of our four attraction statuses, none of them would be my first choice to apply to shows. That is why I'm in favor of just putting the dates out there and letting people do the math themselves. It's what Wikipedia does with TV shows and radio shows. --Ahecht (TALK
) 16:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I do like "operating" for open. Between closed/removed and inactive/retired, I like the latter. The trouble with just using dates is that in researching shows/special events/etc. closing dates are hell to find. I have looked everywhere for a close date for Pirates 4-D at Luxor. Nothing. I don't think the theater even exists anymore, but there is nothing out there to prove it. "What happens in Vegas...." Oddjob84 (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Just finished reading this after starting my own version of this lower down (thanks to Oddjob84 for pointing out that this section had grown and encompassed this issue). As I said there, in my opinion, if the structure containing the ride/show is destroyed following that ride/show's closure, it is removed. As for coasters, if the majority of it's track has been torn down, it is removed. Otherwise, I would say it is closed (honestly, I don't see the need for the removed status, but that's something we seem to have reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 3#Status fields in attraction articles and I respect that). I also fully agree that it is easier to just keep something listed as open when it closes due to seasonal operation or under refurbishment, because it let's everyone focus on other things than constantly changing statuses.

As for the question on shows, it would be kind of nice to have another template for that since it can be hard to adapt a show into the attraction template. However, we would need to know where to draw the line what is a show and what is a ride, especially when covering stuff that is in between a standard show (such as Festival of the Lion King and For the First Time in Forever: A Frozen Sing-Along Celebration) and a standard ride (such as The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror and It's a Small World). Examples of these in between experiences (trying to avoid attraction or show right now) and hybrids include Circle-Vision 360° movies, Carousel of Progress, MuppetVision 3D, The American Adventure, Poseidon's Fury, and T2 3-D: Battle Across Time. Personally, I would draw the line at continuous operation. That is to say that things that run on throughout the day without scheduled times are rides/attractions, and those that have stated start times are shows. Elisfkc (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Elisfkc, I understand your frustration with the "Removed" status. Terms like closed and inactive tend to imply an indefinite amount of time that could be temporary. Other terms like demolished, defunct, and removed imply permanent closure. Years ago, there was no rhyme or reason as to which one was specified. Before the recent RfC, long-time veterans of this project merged some of these statuses together to make it less confusing, but it still had issues. As Ahecht points out in that section below, we had to find a way to deal with the removal of SBNO, and we chose the term that had the closest fit, '"Closed". This is still a confusing change, because for the longest time, "Closed" meant permanent closure within our project. But in common language, it doesn't always mean permanent. While a better solution probably exists, I'd still have to say we are in a better position with closed/removed than we were with SBNO/closed.
For shows, events, and parades, I don't think "Open" or "Operating" are the best descriptors. If we are going to create a new infobox template and we agree somewhat on "Inactive" and "Retired", then I would suggest "Active" as the only other status. While I still think a new template is certainly an option, I still caution that the more templates we have, the more complex this gets. I just checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Templates, and it appears we have 8 main templates and 1 sub-template. And actually, {{Infobox recurring event}} already exists for events. Interestingly, it already uses Active, Inactive, and Defunct for its statuses. Perhaps we can just adapt this one to apply to shows and parades as well, and then spend some time tweaking its parameters. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@GoneIn60: You seemed to have missed my question/inquiry. When does closed become removed? I am looking for the answer to this. Like I said before, in my opinion, if the structure containing the ride/show is destroyed following that ride/show's closure, it is removed. As for coasters, if the majority of it's track has been torn down, it is removed. Otherwise, I would say it is closed. Elisfkc (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, take one of my examples from above, Phantom Theatre. The structure was never torn down, yet we refer to the ride as removed. There is no option to say replaced, so removed is the best fit. I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all approach. It depends on how the article is written and what its main focus is. Use your best judgement. Personally, if an attraction is in the process of being removed, I would leave it as closed until the demolition or removal is complete. In the rare circumstances when part of the ride remains indefinitely (like a footer from a roller coaster or a building from a ride), eventually we'd want to refer to it as removed. Another good example that comes to mind is The Crypt at Kings Island. That ride is long gone, but the park still uses the building during Halloween Haunt and probably for storage. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Closed versus Removed[edit]

Can we get a consensus/written precedent set on what the difference between Closed versus Removed means on the template? In my opinion, if the structure containing the ride/show is destroyed following that ride/show's closure, it is removed. Otherwise, I would say it is closed (honestly, I don't see the need for the removed status, but that's something we seem to have reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 3#Status fields in attraction articles and I respect that). Multiple other users (or sockpuppets of the same one, not sure) seem to believe that closed should be treated as a synonym of removed (such as on Wonders of Life, Carousel of Progress, etc.) So, basically, I'm looking for a vote and discussion about which of the following should be the precedent. Thanks, --Elisfkc (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

When we consolidated the status options, "closed" was introduced as a non-jargon form of SBNO. That would mean that any show whose essential non-portable components are still in place is closed, otherwise it is removed. However, I would not object to your definition either, as it makes things neater for non-ride attractions, but it would be a change in consensus. --Ahecht (TALK
) 17:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
That's what I'm looking for, a consensus of where the line between closed and removed is. Elisfkc (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Elisfkc, did you see the new discussion above under Infobox template modifications for status field beginning with Revisiting statuses? Rather than reiterating a long discussion, I agree with your take on closed vs. removed above. Oddjob84 (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought I had, but it looks like there was more added than what I remember. Just read it now, but it doesn't seem to have ever reached a consensus on this issue. I'll join in there and leave this section to rot. Elisfkc (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Quick Consensus[edit]

I'm working on Haunted attraction (simulated). Does it need an infobox, and if so which one? None of the attractions boxes seem appropriate. Oddjob84 (talk) 02:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Oddjob84; Personally, I don't think that article needs an infobox since its about a variety of types of haunted houses and not specific types or design of one. Since the topic is general, I think it would be best to provide an image where the infobox would be of a haunted attraction as an example. (Also small note and nothing rude, please check WP:WBA as some of the history section seems to be written like an essay and may need to be in an encyclopedic tone) :) Adog104 Talk to me 02:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Oddjob84 I agree with Adog104. Really, what information would you put in an infobox about such a broad spectrum topic? There's no way to "billboard" it. Graphics, perhaps, as an example of each of the subtopics under "Types of haunted attractions". And they will have to be very specific images; general "promotional" images ain't gonna cut it. None would be better than mediocre. They could break the article. Maybe an editor with an interest in haunted attractions and a camera might help out here. <wink, wink, nudge, nudge>  — Myk Streja (what?) 15:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pixar Pier. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Theme park attractions use of Italics[edit]

Hey, I was trying to find what the MoS was about whether theme park attractions should use Italics or not, but couldn't find it on this project or MOS:ITALICTITLE. Is there a consensus on how this should be? To me it seems like it falls under the Major work category and is very similar to the Named exhibitions criteria. --Gonnym (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I share the same confusion with Gonnym as some articles in our project, such as Sheikra or Falcon's Fury are not italicized, but others such as Manta and Kraken are. I think they shouldn't be italicized based off what MOS:italictitle has to say but I think there should be consensus and more comments on this. Adog104 Talk to me 19:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The most recent discussion is here, but there have been others as well. The overall consensus within the WikiProject has generally been to avoid italics for roller coasters. Besides the manual of style guides mentioned in past discussions, most reliable sources do not italicize them either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Funny enough that the example in that conversation is currently in italics. Back to the issue though, there are three points in the MoS that make me believe that theme park attractions should be in italics:
  • "Named exhibitions (artistic, historical, scientific, educational, cultural, literary, etc. – generally hosted by, or part of, an existing institution such as a museum or gallery), but not large-scale exhibition events or individual exhibits" - so exhibitions in a park should be, for example: Marvel Cinematic Universe#Live attractions: Avengers S.T.A.T.I.O.N
  • "Paintings, sculptures and other works of visual art with a title rather than a name" - would seem that a ride is more a work of visual art than it is a building.
  • "Named oratorios, cantatas, motets, orchestral works, and other compositions beyond the scope of a single song or dance" - Star Wars: A Galactic Spectacular would fall under something like this --Gonnym (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Certain types of attractions may very well fall into what some Manual of Style guides deem italics as necessary, however, I do not believe this applies to roller coasters and amusement rides. Also, we should keep in mind that exhibitions referenced above typically refers to when items (usually artistic in nature) are on display in a gallery-type venue. As long as that's the case, I would support italics. The examples you gave represent exceptions that warrant italics. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

About references and sources[edit]

I've been trying to create articles relating to roller coasters more recently and trying to improve Mako among others amusement ride articles. More recently, I've been coming to small conclusions that some information found in detail among Good Articles and Featured Articles are found on websites that are less publicly known and reported (for instance, on SheiKra it sources "BGT Guide" and "Thrill Network" among those of other major outlets). To the point, my question is: what kind of websites are applicable to be used in roller coaster articles? Do they have to be well-known and referenced websites from mainstream media such as RCDB or Screamscape? Or can they be from lesser-known media in the industry, such as those who give a review about a roller coaster or may provide details as to the construction/making of it? (I've read WP:V about blogs and such but I feel like I need more verification about what I should and shouldn't use among what sources are okay or not) Adog104 Talk to me 23:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Typically, a source is deemed reliable if the author is a recognized expert within the industry (i.e. recognized by a mainstream publication), or if the publisher of the author's work is accepted as reliable. Many blogs and fan websites do not qualify per WP:USERGENERATED and WP:SPS. There was a recent RSN discussion you can read through in which the consensus agreed that, for example, was not reliable for similar reasons. Generally, is considered a reliable source, but I would strongly hesitate citing Screamscape. Information there is quickly removed over time, and often, they report on unconfirmed rumors. The only time I generally accept that source is if it's complemented by a reputable publication, such as a newspaper or magazine. If you're not sure, you can always start a discussion at WP:RSN and post a link on this page informing the project to weigh in. Hope that helps! --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
GoneIn60; It most certainly does, thank you! :D Adog104 Talk to me 02:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested Move for The Racer (Kings Island)[edit]

Please weigh in at Talk:The Racer (Kings Island)#Requested move 3 August 2017. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

List of amusement rides[edit]

Would anyone care to weigh in here? Please see also the two preceeding edits. Thanks. (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Weighed in, and ruled in. Adog104 Talk to me 10:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
"Weighed in, and rule in."? It seems like that's a signal of ownership qualities. From that phrase alone, it seems like you want the final edit. I didn't see any effort to explain your decision and you could of at least tagged me, so we could have a discussion instead of making your own changes. Hawkeye75 (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hawkeye75; Didn't I just respond on my talk page a few hours ago exactly explaining on what you had said about the revert where I even pinged you? Also that's quite the accusation considering I had only edited that page twice recently, one edit being a revert per a remark you had made explained on my talk page and one per a mistake I made that I mentioned on my talk page. I'm going to say again this wasn't in my intentions to be rude, and to please be calm. Adog104 Talk to me 01:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


To be clear, and also because of this now, I would like to invite other editors in this project and outside to speak on the subject of amusement rides and what constitutes one and what doesn't. Since now looking between Hawkeye75 and I, there clearly will not be a consensus if slight comments are going to be [made] between us. Adog104 Talk to me 02:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

See below. Adog104 Talk to me 01:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Water parks and water rides[edit]

Four water parks have been removed from List of amusement parks in Greater Orlando with the edit summaries "Volcano Bay isnt an amusement park lol" and "more water parks removed". Should this be reverted? (If so, please go ahead - thanks.) (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Water rides are now being removed from List of amusement rides. Should Category:Water rides be excluded from Category:Amusement rides? (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I would say that they should be removed. They are kind of a sub-category of amusement rides, but at the same time, something pretty different. --Elisfkc (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
In term, I would agree for what I remarked about the water park slides, since they're technically not amusement park attractions rather mainly water rides (like Elisfkc said a sub-category). Technically water parks are generally a sub-category or equal to an amusement park status depending on their marketing or ownership (from my opinion, not from any direct source material). Although Volcano Bay seems to be a separate entity from its sister amusements parks, and therefore I would say it is as such. Adog104 Talk to me 18:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of certain "amusement rides"[edit]

Hello, I have removed some articles that I fimly believe do not belong in List of amusement rides. If you want to review the current list and spot any other articles that don't belong there, please go ahead. I have removed: AquaLoop (water slide), Backyard railroad (not even rideable), Chairlift (form of transportation), Fishpipe (water activity), FlowRider (sport/water sport), Lazy river (usually found at water parks and not amusement parks lol), Russian Mountains (not sure what this is), Water slide (speaks for itself) and Wind Seeker (article is about Cedar Fair WindSeekers). @Adog104:, you had a few problems with some of these, so if you want to share your opinion, I'm tagging you in this conversation. Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye75; Let's go through the list I guess since there wasn't much conversation from a third opinion, so Yes, No (Backyard railroad's are ride-able, and are a form of amusement attraction: Example), Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes (although water parks can be classified as standalone amusement parks), No (since Russian Mountains are a form of amusement attractions that preceded the actual roller coaster), Yes, Maybe (since its an amusement attraction, but debatable I guess due to its specific locations). Sorry about earlier also, I thought with us both being heated I thought I should have taken a break which ended in my computer breaking anyways and now I have to focus on other things off-wiki which you can find out in my talk page. Adog104 Talk to me 00:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)