Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks

Super Star, Freak Out and KMG Booster, night.jpg WikiProject Amusement Parks
Main Talk Participants Standards Assessment Featured Content Popular Pages Templates Category Collaboration Task Forces Newsletters
WikiProject Amusement Parks (Rated 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.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

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[reply]

Can we get the page unprotected? It currently is heavily outdated, and with it being unprotected, I don'think it's gonna get fixed. 24.188.113.103 (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SoopperDooper who?

I would like to request some help to figure out who did what for the SooperDooperLooper (SDL). The Roller Coaster DataBase states that the SDL was a Schwarzkopf make (or manufacturer), with Werner Stengel as the designer. Although the roller coaster looks like an Schwarzkopf and I am inclined to believe RCDB, historic newspapers vary as to who did what.

  • An initial announcement in April 1976 states Intamin as the manufacturer (Lebanon Daily News).
  • A report on the opening date in May 1977 states the SDL was designed and built in Schwaben, West Germany, bought...in Zurich, Switzerland, and set on structural steel designed in Santa Monica, [CA]. (York Daily Record).
  • Later reports would say Schwarzkopf was the designer (The Morning Call), (The Evening Sun) or creator (The Daily News).
  • During the lawsuit deposition for a death on the SDL, newspapers report Schwarzkopf as the manufacturer, and Intamin as the distributor (Lebanon Daily News), (The Daily News). More specifically, Schwarzkopf was the designer and Intamin in charge of construction and installation (The Daily News).
  • Another lawsuit lists Intamin as the manufacturer (The Daily News).
  • A modern report states that Schwarzkopf was the designer, and Intamin "purchased" the ride, whatever that means (WHTM).
  • The only mention I have found thus far of Werner Stengel having been involved in from the Hershey Archives stating he was an architect.
  • Also this to consider, with Schwarzkopf as the designer and "purchased through" Intamin (Hersheypark)

I want to conclude based on the varying news reports, that:

  • Schwarzkopf – Designer and manufacturer,
  • Werner Stengel – Architect of the design and plans,
  • Intamin – Business facilitator and maybe in-charge of installation and construction (maybe manufactured the supports).

If anyone can provide input, it would be appreciated. Adog (TalkCont) 14:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to Coasterpedia, Intamin represented Schwarzkopf outside of Germany in its "early years", which would have been throughout the 1970s. I don't know much about Intamin's early history, so perhaps someone else can chime in with more details, but I think your analysis here is pretty spot on. The sources surrounding the lawsuits are likely the strongest indication of their relationship, since passing mentions in newspapers only focused on the creator, which most of the time mentioned Schwarzkopf. Would be helpful as well to have some of that early Intamin history with business relationships added to Intamin's main article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coasterpedia admin here. That is my understanding too and I'm sure I've come across proper sources in the past that confirm it (our Intamin article is currently unsourced). I will have a look. NemesisAT (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NemesisAT, greatly appreciated! --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GoneIn60 Found some Intamin material on Theme Park Review that confirms they worked with Schwarzkopf. Am not sure if Wikipedia guidelines allow that to be referenced directly but at the very least should let us confirm that SooperDooperLooper was a Schwarzkopf designed and built coaster. NemesisAT (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you graciously, I believe it could be used as an offline source. Maybe I'll have to dig around in Newspapers.com and see if they have anything on the roller coaster manufacturers. I appreciate both of your help, some of these article's are a doozy to research even with a newspaper archive. Adog (TalkCont) 01:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's another source. I thought it was pretty well known that Intamin represented Schwarzkopf outside of Germany and Werner Stengal did most of the ride engineering. If you Google Schwarzkopf and Intamin, you will see various retellings of the same tale that I referenced. "Intamin represented Schwarzkopf outside of Germany and many of the early coasters credited to Intamin are actually Schwarzkopf coasters." Intamin subcontracted nearly everything for the first few decades of its existence. Although some credit Cedar Point's Junior Gemini as the first Intamin coaster, that was subcontracted as well. A few years ago when I interviewed Sascha Czibulka, the current Executive Vice President of Intamin, he told me that the first coaster that Intamin truly manufactured was Lethal Weapon Pursuit at Movie Park Germany, which opened in 1996.JlACEer (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey that is awesome! Its great getting to know some new insight into the manufacturer, especially first-hand. I think after Busch Gardens Tampa Bay is done (eventually), manufacturers might be on my list to update. I was not very familiar being an amateur enthusiast. Asking y'all and researching these rides are making me learn a lot about the amusement industry. It stinks the ACE documentary about Schwarzkopf is so far away... Adog (TalkCont) 13:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft proposal for the future of WP:APARKS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


So, it has been almost ten years since the last major discussion on the future of WP:WikiProject Amusement Parks. Since the discussion, the project has flourished. I was not around during this era, but I do appreciate the sense of community the project brought in tying collaboration efforts together. Since being a member of this project, I have felt that another discussion is warranted, as some areas have fallen into a bit of disrepair, and some areas can be improved. I would like to formally propose changes to be discussed within the interim month(s) (September–October) and invite others to propose their thoughts about how we can improve and update our project. Some initial proposals can be found below. Members are welcome to support or oppose with a comment about their decision regarding these changes and/or add their proposals to be discussed. Adog (TalkCont) 16:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it is about time we clean up around here and reorganize! I've done bits and pieces here and there over the years, but we really need a focused effort to get more done. Following a surge in activity in the early 2010s, the project fell back into decline in late 2014, especially after Themeparkgc (whom I fear may no longer be with the living) abruptly stopped editing in December 2015. Themeparkgc was critical to laying a lot of the foundation we still rely on today and helped create/manage our templates. Wish we would have had the chance to meet or speak outside of Wikipedia. Astros4477 helped reenergize the project, and Dom497 led the charge with Operation B&M and reinstating the newsletter for a few issues. We're in a different era now, of course, with some new faces and fresh ideas. It would be good to pool resources and set some common goals among those that remain.
Also, fun fact...I never knew until now that WP:APARKS was a shortcut for this project! Guess you learn something new every day! --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with that GoneIn60. Currently, it seems like the project is much less active than in the early 2010s, with the loss of Themeparkgc, Astros, and Dom. Consequently, during the past several years, the quality of APARKS' existing GAs and FAs has suffered - for example, yesterday I had to update Medusa (Six Flags Great Adventure) because, apparently, nobody bothered to add sources for the fact that the coaster had been renamed. On the other hand, new GAs have been restricted mostly to Florida, with a smattering in New York. Hopefully, this will change soon with the new GANs that Adog just submitted, but the fact is, we need some more editors who are willing to work on content. Epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Greetings! I support these proposals and welcome the discussion. I will be one of said editors willing to work on content and ensure we continue to produce results to a high standard. UnknownBrick22 (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been a participant of this WikiProject for a few months and I support all of the below -- it would definitely be interesting to see a revitalization / new era of this WikiProject! from yours truly, Harobouri TC 22:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the ping—I've been more or less in wiki-hibernation now for well over a year and only check back to maintain my smattering of passion projects (including a major one within the scope of this project). I largely support all of the initiatives listed below, but successful implementation is predicated on the idea that we'll have droves of people coming into the project. Our #1 focus should be getting people in. This is the key issue; park/coaster enthusiasm is rather niche and a lot of these ideas won't get off the ground until we get numbers of active editors up. I don't think the third section of your proposal does enough to solve this. We need a plan to get APARKS some more exposure, and get people outside the project interested in coming in. Open to suggestions. — CR4ZE (TC) 10:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow. I am grateful for the responses thus far! It is great seeing some new participation and faces around here. I had refrained from replying to this thread to see what our corner community thinks about said proposals for a month, and I am happy about the responses and feedback from discussion that have taken place. I do agree with everything below and above.
To further discuss, summarize, and note thus far:
Altogether, I think leaving this discussion up for another month would be good, maybe into November if another editor or existing editors want to drop a note. I also want to give the floor to ya'll as well. If you have any ideas of how to update our project, do not be afraid and post a subsection on your proposal you may have (even if you are an outsider or non-member)! Adog (TalkCont) 15:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I'd like to input a suggestion that maybe we should reorganize our navbar menu in our WikiProject for it to look more appealable or fit within the page (if thats the correct phrase)
E.g, I'm currently on my iPad and the navbar menu extends outside of the page. On my laptop, the navbar menu has an extra empty box.
That's the only suggestion I have at this moment. Thanks! Harbouri: Let's talk! (This is a legitimate alternative account for Harobouri.) 19:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ending Operation B&M

When it was proposed, Operation B&M helped participants of our WikiProject to collaborate on specific amusement park articles relating to Bolliger & Mabillard (B&M). However, it has been 9 years since the last major milestone. 50% is fantastic, but this collaboration is long overdue and has not met its goals. Moreover, it is particular towards B&M, and we have plenty of manufacturers, and amusement parks that should be shown some love in article improvement.

I propose we formally archive Operation B&M to the informal graveyard.

I think this would be a good idea. To me, Operation B&M seemed like it was quite broad, since the company has built dozens of coasters, making it very hard to improve 100% of the pages to GA status. Epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long-term drives

Who knew we had barnstars and awards? I certainly did not (well, kinda). From the era they were created, de-stubbing articles was a good criterion for some kind of award. Why not play into that? General improvement of all amusement park-related articles would be an admirable goal.

In place of possibly retiring Operation B&M, I propose we formally create a new long-term drive (6 months to a year) that gives ample opportunity for improving amusement park-related articles that more prominently involve the use of our Awards (currently "Interlocking Loops of Excellence," "The Coaster Barnstar," and "The Roller Coaster Barnstar").

Sounds reasonable. I think what you will generally find is that there is limited capacity late spring thru late summer, when editors spend a lot more time adding updates from announcements, creating new articles, and reverting vandalism. There's just enough of us to keep the lights on. Fall and winter, which in many regions tends to be slower, would be good times of the year to collaborate and push for a new drive. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree as well. Perhaps we can replace Operation B&M with smaller-scale collaborations, such as for individual parks. A more localized collaboration (e.g. a drive to bring all Cedar Point rides to GA status) is much more viable, as it has a more tangible goal (e.g. a good topic for Cedar Point). Epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Member participation and involvement

As of June 2020, we have/had around 70 active members on our project. That is awesome! However, I feel like I do not see many of your faces around (or signatures). Maybe some are WikiGnomes improving amusement park articles here and there. Maybe there are active editors not in our project yet who may want to join but have not—my mind wonders. Anyways, I want to propose several measures for member participation and involvement that may encourage more active participation, provide better communication and collaboration, and help with editor retention. It includes:

A) Establishing a welcoming committee for new participants and creating a tab on WP:WikiProject Amusement Parks for beginning editors. Participants would not need to post ads on their userpage, but a welcome here and there goes a long way for those finding their way around our project.

B) Bringing back a newsletter from its minimal form in 2013 for whom anyone can contribute their thoughts and wishes in either a quarterly or bi-annual issue. Does anyone have any fun names for a magazine, like how Amusement Today publishes their monthly magazine?

C) Creating a WikiProject Amusement Parks Hall of Fame for participants who, over the years, have actively made an impact on our corner of Wikipedia through contributions to amusement park articles, providing persistent maintenance, and overall embodying real-life amusement park innovators. There are several editors I have personally looked up to that have since gone retired or missing. Some here are actively editing. What's better than celebrating your achievements?

D) Encouraging participants to access databases to improve our amusement park articles through the Wikipedia Library. Newspapers.com is a godsend for any roller coaster article in the 20th century. NewspaperArchive somewhat so. Letting editors know where to find these resources would be beneficial for improving existing articles or other sources you might know.

A: Support. I'm still kinda new here, and I'll admit that I'm still not sure what to do here (besides attempting to perform cleanup on things that look like they could use some cleanup), so something like this would go a long way to helping others in this sort of situation as well.
B: Support. Makes sense overall. Trying to think of a pun based on 'thoosie' and 'news' that sounds not-terrible enough to be usable as a name for it, but I can't really think of anything.
C: Support. Might help to provide some more encouragement for people to actively contribute to the project, and motivate people to keep on contributing. I suppose you could try to encourage further contributions by indicating whether someone's 'active' or 'retired' on there (with being 'active' and in the hall-of-fame being somewhat more impressive than reaching the hall-of-fame and then being marked as 'retired' or something), but then again idk if that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia halls-of-fame or not.
D: Support. I'll admit that I genuinely did not know that the Wikipedia Library contained resources that would be useful for theme parks. I honestly didn't realize that it had stuff that could be relevant to amusement parks (I was under the impression that it mostly consisted of research papers and such), but having this sort of signposting to these resources would be pretty darn useful to any other newbies here 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk | contrib) 16:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think all of these would be great ideas. I'm not sure if we have enough people for B, but if we do, that would be great. The Wikipedia Library is extremely useful for finding sources. I'd suggest ProQuest as well (which is accessible through the Wikipedia Library), as it may have access to journals that aren't available elsewhere. Epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amusement park source database

I asked about the potential for WP:WikiProject Amusement Parks to have a perennial source-like database a while back. A database about what sources we can and cannot use would be detrimental. For new and existing users, a database of sources can ensure confidence about additions coming from reliable sources. Editors outside the range of amusement parks might not feel as confident when we use amusement park-specific sources such as Roller Coaster DataBase. A discussion page to point to a source's reliability (with a short explanation of its reliability) would help in outside discussions for those who might not be familiar with the sources we frequently use.

I propose WikiProject Amusement Parks creates an in-house noticeboard for verifying reliable sources, such as with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources where sources can be posted similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. If we can not independently verify a source, users would be redirected to WP:RSN, where a consensus can be more broadly created and results posted to a source board.

Support. Makes sense overall, can't see any problems with this proposal. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also support this proposal. We need clear guidance on whether sources like RCDB and YouTube POVs are acceptable. We frequently use these, but editors outside of APARKS may not approve of these sources (see, for instance, Template:Did you know nominations/Dania Beach Hurricane). Epicgenius (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Worth pointing out that RCDB has its own article, but as far as I'm aware, it has never been fully vetted at WP:RSN (though it did have a name drop here and met no opposition). It has also been name-dropped in deletion discussions. As a topic, it has received coverage in secondary sources. Although I consider it unbiased and generally reliable, I often caution that it's an online database that's being actively updated all the time; it's best used as a complementary source.
YouTube POVs need to be carefully vetted on a case-by-case basis. They are not automatically banned, but they generally aren't acceptable for reasons stated at WP:VIDEOLINK. At minimum, the YT channel should either be a certified channel or be owned by an established expert in the field. It also shouldn't have any WP:SPS issues or concerns (drive-by IPs could cite them hoping to drive traffic to their channel). But even when it meets those minimum requirements, there's still no guarantee it can be used as a citation. Like RCDB, YT POVs, at best, should only be used as a complementary source IMO. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, when carrying out our own research we've found several mistakes in the RCDB. That being said Duane Marden is always interested in updating and fixing them. I have also personally contributed information to it. NemesisAT (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, great point. I know I've submitted error corrections to them as well in the past. This is exactly why I urge others to avoid citing RCDB as the ultimate source of truth, though I do consider it a notch or two higher than most primary sources, such as amusement park claims which have a marketing interest! --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revisit attraction infobox and WP:TRAVELGUIDE

Some members (including myself) had mediated on inappropriate parameters for the infobox of roller coasters in a 2018 discussion. Since then, I have changed my beliefs on some categories and do not include them in articles I try to update. My concerns mainly pertain to the whole Rider information parameters of Template:Infobox roller coaster, and the Additional information parameter "pay_per_use". I believe these parameters straddle the line between objective information and WP:TRAVELGUIDE for readers.

I propose we revisit what parameters are acceptable and change our infobox accordingly (not at this moment to vote on these parameters, just a vote to revisit this discussion as more parameters may be highlighted).

Yes, these parameters should be discussed, if for no other reason than to establish a clear consensus on what the infobox can include. The fact that a ride can be pay-per-use may be relevant, but the price of one ride most definitely is not, for example. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improving existing articles

Woo-wee, we have 13 Featured Articles, 4 Featured Lists, and 117 Good Articles. According to our wonderful statistic bots, 0.5% of articles are FA-status, and 6.8% are GA, FA, or FL status (as of September 2022). I think anything above 5% is remarkable. Addressed above was a drive for the potential improvement of general amusement park articles. There are specific articles in our higher graces that need some love too. Either because they have fallen into disrepair or we have access to resources that members in the past did not. I know Kumba (roller coaster) has more history than its one-paragraph leads to believe.

I propose we revisit some of our higher-status articles and reassess whether they still meet our higher quality criteria or need to be temporarily demoted to encourage improvement.

I also agree with this. There are some articles that have changed substantially since their promotion, e.g. Medusa (Six Flags Great Adventure), while others may be deficient in one way or another, e.g. articles with ridiculously short history sections. I'm worried that such articles may not meet modern GA standards, so it's a good idea to at least check these pages. Epicgenius (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assessing notability

I love seeing my favorite old roller coasters on our project. Lots of them do not have sources or information for the reasons stated above. Some might not have any sources and merely exist on the bounds and leaps of the Roller Coaster DataBase. But a simple truth about Wikipedia is that we are not the Roller Coaster DataBase. Unfortunately, some articles do not need to exist in our project because they do not meet WP:GNG. As a user pointed out on several article talk pages, we should be more active in improving articles or helping clean up the shop.

I want to propose whether specific amusement park articles need an established set of criteria for Wikipedia inclusion or a set of criteria editors can look towards whether we should consider merging or deleting topics.

There was a time when the old school of thought was "every coaster needed an article; all are notable". Many of our templates auto-categorize opening year, closing year, manufacturers, etc., so that reinforced the notion that every ride needed its own article to accomplish that. Focused initiatives like the Roller Coaster Task Force were born from that line of thinking!
Since then, I think we've come to understand the issues with doing that and the need to assess Notability on a case-by-case basis. On WP:REDIRECT pages, we can manually add categories to satisfy editors who wish to have every ride/coaster indexed and categorized. They don't need a dedicated article every time. This workaround is particularly useful in articles whose topics are demoted to a redirect. It would be wise to dedicate some real estate on the "Standards" page to explain this concept to new editors (e.g., when to create a standalone article, when to go with a redirect, how to categorize redirects, etc). --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose that it's worth migrating the data about any non-notable rides over to Wikidata before deleting those pages/turning them into redirects (as chances are that nobody's done that yet), especially in the cases of any rides that aren't on RCDB for any reason (such as 'not being a rollercoaster'). After all, whilst not all rides are really notable enough for an article, they're all probably are notable enough for a somewhat comprehensive Wikidata item at very least. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also think we should copy over the roller coaster data to Wikidata, even if they aren't notable on Wikipedia. WD has a much lower notability standard than WP, so if something were cited to RCDB alone, that info could be moved over to WD (or a new WD item could be created). – Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Information.svg

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Silver Beach County Park#Requested move 7 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed splitting of Six Flags Great America

There is a discussion of a proposed splitting of Six Flags Great America to History of Six Flags Great America. If you have any thoughts on the merger and/or splitting, please add to the discussion here. Thank you. --Harobouri TC (he/him) 12:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories that are automatically generated from templates

The {{Infobox roller coaster}} template ran into an issue recently, where the status at a coaster article was changed to "Under construction" during its renovation, but this caused an odd, new category creation for "Roller coasters planned to open in 1994". The intentions were good back when this auto-cat feature was added to this template, but moving forward, we've learned it can cause issues. I've suggested the feature be removed. Please weigh in with your thoughts at Template talk:Infobox roller coaster#Automatically-generated categories. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 06:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliable source discussion

Per the above proposal about the future of this WikiProject, it has been mentioned having an in-house reliable source subpage would be useful to APARKS. As such, I've started a user space page for a draft of a list of reliable sources which can be found here (that anyone is free to edit, add, remove, etc.). I think we should have a general discussion here about commonly used or popular sources first as a jumpstart before we begin RS or Notability subpage(s), similar to those of other WikiProjects.

Below, there are a few sections of the names of websites that are popular/commonly used. Please comment on their reliability with Reliable, Unreliable or With considerations - please make sure to include reasonings. If this discussion becomes too long, please move it to another page. -- Harobouri TC (he/him) 16:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another discussion of the future of WikiProject Amusement Parks is ongoing and input of participants is requested in the following section at the section: Implementing new ideas: Guides, new collaboration, visual makeover. -- Harobouri TC (he/him) 20:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RCDB

For reference, RCDB can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Generally reliable, the RCDB contains pertinent information on hundreds of thousands of attractions from kiddie roller coasters to stratacoasters. I believe the RCDB is an invaluable source to WP:APARKS and Wikipedia because of the information provided by its 15 or so researchers, with Duane Marden essentially being the editor-in-chief. The database has a complete staff structure and is not user-generated. Not to mention RCDB's coverage on other reliable sources (such as The New York Times), the information on each page is generally reliable when compared to other public resources. It is mainly an integral database.
My concern, which I feel obligated to state, is there may be some incorrect information, as I previously noted on Kumba (roller coaster) with diff here. I believe the RCDB is most reliable when using its statistical data, make, model, type, characteristics (track, trains, details), name, location, pictures, videos, maps, definitions, terms, and other resources (things that are obvious). I am sometimes a bit wary of operation-specific dates, or notes (e.g. coming to mind from the reliable trade magazine Amusement Business stating the New Mexico Rattler was "95%" completed when CCI closed (ProQuest), while RCDB states "less than half complete" (RCDB - New Mexico Rattler). These are only two instances, which may be due to a typo or insufficient resources when these entries were put in place. I believe the RCDB can be used as a single source, but as with any citation work I do, I would use it with another source to present more than one avenue or reliable information. Adog (TalkCont) 17:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've also noticed typos over the years, and it's more common with older coasters that pre-dated the creation of the website. I think in Kumba's case, the 4/20/93 date claim by RCDB is referring to media preview day per this source. In any case, even the most reliable newspapers get statistics and dates wrong on occasion, which is why it's always a good idea to have important claims confirmed by at least two sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, I do not personally blame them considering they have 11,261 roller coasters (as of December 4, 2022) on the books, and it is a great community-rooted database. Always good to double check, and when it comes to statistics, I usually trust their numbers with another source. An example where I think they are right against RS is Jolly Rancher Remix, and the ride's total track length. Adog (TalkCont) 14:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally reliable - I agree with the above. RCDB is generally reliable because it's not user-generated, but it sometimes makes mistakes. I'd recommend using the RCDB in addition to another source is possible. Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Mostly reliable - As Adog mentioned, sometimes RCDB has some factual inaccuracies. I've also discovered an inaccuracy when trying to find sources for the layout of Pipeline: The Surf Coaster. The roller coaster only has 1 inversion, but listed the inversion as being both a corkscrew and horseshoe inversion. Despite this, I believe RCDB is reliable coming to ride statistics. Should use another source to confirm what RCDB says is factually correct. Harobouri TC (he/him) 20:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Worth noting that RCDB does rely in part on user submissions - I have personally suggested changes and sent in corrections. Though of course these are all vetted by Duane Marden before being added. Garuda3 (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reliable – Generally more reliable than newspapers for statistical claims, and about on par with newspapers when it comes to dates. Like with a lot of major city newspapers, there will be the occasional statistical inaccuracy or flubbing of a date, especially with older coasters that opened and/or closed prior to the website's creation in 1996. The only problem is that newspapers tend to regurgitate and publish statistics given to them by the park (or read from their PR) and not confirmed by an independent source, so you always have to be careful with those as well when comparing to RCDB. For statistical differences, I tend to lean in favor of RCDB's claim. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally reliable - The source is excellent for confirming if a ride exists or ever existed, and in most cases only creates entries for new rides when enough proof exists that the ride is indeed coming. Information in doubt is usually noted as such or simply left blank on a given attraction's entry. Statistics can sometimes come from marketing info, meaning WP:PRIMARY concerns may come into play. --McDoobAU93 14:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Appears Reliable - It's already citable as a source on Wikidata as well (Property:P2751), which lends some additional credibility to it (or words along those lines I guess) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talkedits) 23:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reliable – Reliable for statistics and any other factual information. I have found inaccuracy with its arbitrary threshold for what is considered a unique rollercoaster vs an off-the-shelf model, as well as its designation of when a rollercoaster is worthy of addition onto RCDB or not. I would usually seek to clarify from other sources in these cases. --Aadams (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

YouTube

For reference, YouTube can be found here; comments go below here:

  • With considerations, for roller coaster articles, Unreliable in almost all other uses. YouTube should always and foremost be evaluated based on WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOREF. I, admittedly, use YouTube point-of-view (POV) videos for roller coaster articles to better present "Ride experience" sections, as most reliable sources will not give an account of the full layout of a roller coaster. The Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SheiKra/archive2 comes to mind when I think about the reasoning behind using YouTube as a source in amusement park articles, mainly for roller coasters. When questioned about CoasterForce's POV being used as a source, the nominator stated:

This is POV of the ride. It can't be fake/modified. I don't think it should be removed because it provides the most detailed layout information. Also, I don't think it is OR by translating a video into words because the video clearly supports if the train is making a left or right (just as an example)...

— Dom497
I believe this is a perfect reason for a POV's inclusion through a YouTube video. So long as the POV has good quality, it is neutral, only features the POV (no commentary, extra footage, or other content), and comes from a verified account (such as Theme Park Review, CoasterForce, or the park's account), it seems like a viable option. I would even argue a video POV is an extension of MOS:ALT, as the "Ride experience" section, only for a roller coaster's layout, is essentially an alternative text to convey information found on a continuously moving image (i.e. the video). When giving more detailed information, such as statistics or a ride's element, another reliable source (such as RCDB) should be used with the YouTube source.
In all other cases, YouTube is generally unreliable. Although, I am sure interview's with a primary source (like those you would find about IAAPA) could be argued as a reliable source of information. Adog (TalkCont) 18:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I also think YouTube is generally unreliable, except for POVs and interviews. Ride POVs show the layout of a ride, which is a basic fact and not controversial, so they should be allowed. Interviews from reliable sources could also be acceptable. However, any video that includes analysis of a ride may not be reliable. Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally unreliable with few exceptions – If my goal was to elevate an article to GA and eventually FA status, I would avoid citing YouTube as much as possible. POVs are one possible exception, but even then, you'd want to complement the source with other reliable sources to reduce its weight. I'd argue that "Ride experience" sections covering the layout of the ride don't actually need any sources. Plot summaries of films and books that are in nearly every article of that type are known to be based on the primary source, and therefore citations are not needed in these sections. The same goes for coasters, IMO. The source is the coaster itself, which is publicly accessible. They deserve the same treatment as a plot summary.
    The other exception would be for interviews, as the others have mentioned, but only interviews conducted by sources that are deemed reliable by Wikipedia's standards. We need to be mindful of WP:RSSELF and WP:USERG, especially the part: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications".
    One other point. Unlike a standard "print" article online that can be archived with Wayback or Archive.today, YouTube content cannot be as far as I'm aware. Since the video can be removed at any time by its creator, which is likely to eventually happen for POVs, there's no good way to archive that information, resulting in the YouTube POV being unreliable in the long term. Best to avoid. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is an interesting take with a possible long-term solution to the longevity of video sources. I wonder how or if we could go about doing such a thing. Adog (TalkCont) 15:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Adog, thanks for the interest. I aim to archive every citation I use on Wikipedia, but video presents a complicated obstacle. Might be worth discussing options in a separate thread down the road. Technically, I can capture and archive the video myself if it's something I don't want to lose, but that's no help to Wikipedia of course, especially after I'm gone! --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am sure once we conclude the reliability of some of these sources, we may start a YouTube discussion and create a guideline similar to MOS:TVPLOT. Adog (TalkCont) 17:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As an addendum, I will also lump enthusiast personnel channels such as Coaster Studios, Midway Mayhem, ElToroRyan, Defunctland, Theme Park Stop, Coaster Bot, Theme Park History, Expedition Theme Park, among others as Unreliable or to avoid for opinions, reviews, rankings, & coverage. Although many of these individuals are well traveled and intentioned, some have great quality essays or videos, quality across the board is varied and are prone to errors. Some channels do not provide sources to their content, and sometimes rely on enthusiast legacy rumors. Not to mention copyright content that is contained within videos. Adog (TalkCont) 16:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Best avoided - Too much risk involved here, such as pages being flooded with video links that are mere speculation and wish-casting. If a reader wants to search YouTube on their own and make their own call, they will do so without our direction. --McDoobAU93 14:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inside the Magic

For reference, ITM can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Not reliable. Articles are mostly click bait — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talkcontribs)
  • Unreliable, like DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast has mentioned, articles on there are prone to being clickbait. We should never use the title of the source to use to confirm something. They posted something (to my memory) when a ride (I forgot which ride) was planned to be closed for renovations and they made it sound like it was going to be permanently closed. Harobouri TC (he/him) 19:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More specifically, some of their "news" content is ≤ half actual reporting and the other half or more is an (assuming unsponsored) promotion of the park, or its clearly unrelated. This is not something that just happened in the past and they fixed, its something they keep doing.
This recent article dated December 13, 2022 talks about a fire at SFGAm half of the time and then talks about Six Flags' operation of theme parks across the world and talks about SFGAm's operation of American Eagle by C+P content from their website. --Harbouri🎢🏗️ (he/himThis is an alt account) 20:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unreliable, although there does seem to be some essence of news coverage (construction updates), it is vastly overshadowed by opinion pieces and small updates you would find on a Disney vlog channel. Adog (TalkCont) 21:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Best to avoid – Reliability is there at times, but the website is full of intrusive advertising and is occasionally written like a tabloid. Not seeing anything here but opinions of facts reported by other sources, or simply a regurgitation of what other sources are reporting. Just use the other sources! --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • CLICKBAIT - Completely and utterly unreliable as previously stated. --McDoobAU93 14:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Best to avoid because it appears to be formatted as a blog with opinion pieces, minor trivia, and the occasional factual scoop. Unlike with trade publications such as Attractions Magazine, I'm not seeing any evidence that this website has an editorial control process. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coaster101

For reference, C101 can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Generally Reliable, Coaster 101 is an online news organization focusing on the amusement park industry. The said organization has an outlined staff structure with a team of engineers, media and communication personnel, and correspondents. They are headed by two individuals and have a range of content from general information about roller coasters, news in the amusement industry, reviews on attractions, and interviews with industry professionals. Guest writers are sometimes used, but are published under the guidance of the staff individuals. Adog (TalkCont) 18:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • With consideration. I'm not sure how well some of the articles are researched. I have spotted some errors and found some inconsistencies. If they are quoting industry professionals, then the article should be reliable. However, they also write many opinion pieces, and I would avoid using any of those as a source.JlACEer (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally reliable per Adog. Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reliable – As with any site, some publications could be questionable, but for the most part, I have found a majority of their content to be reasonably reliable. Works well as a complementary source. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theme Park Insider

For reference, TPI can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Generally Reliable, the Theme Park Insider news website has a focus on the amusement industry; and has a staff structure with Robert Niles as its editor-in-chief. There are writers, some more notable than others, but it is assumed to be edited and published before release. Robert Niles has had coverage in reliable sources, as he likes to state on his about page. Niles has been quoted in Forbes, coverage in trade magazine AdWeek, and mentions in Travel & Leisure for its amusement park coverage. The website has a range of topics, from opinion pieces and news reports. Adog (TalkCont) 19:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Will change to With considerations given factual reporting, disregarding opinion pieces per below. Adog (TalkCont) 18:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally reliable per Adog. Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • With consideration. I know that Niles has been quoted in various magazines and newspapers, but outside of Disney, I've never considered him to be very knowledgeable. Sure, he's made a name for himself and that's why others flock to him, but I don't think he's a very good source. I don't think he travels very much and I have never seen him at press or media events outside of the general Orlando area. If you need to know something about Disney World, he's the man. If it's not Disney, use caution. Much like Coaster101 and other websites, avoid opinion pieces.JlACEer (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Somewhat reliable, use with caution – I've seen a lot of content that simply post construction updates through pictures with a little speculation on what they mean. General commentary can be sketchy at times. I'm with JlACEer on this one. Avoid citing opinions and only use for factual representation that is shared by other sources. If other sources aren't talking about it, it probably isn't significant enough to warrant mention on Wikipedia. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attractions Magazine

For reference, Attractions Magazine can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Reliable – They have been cited by other reliable publications, and I've cited them myself in a number of articles. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reliable - One of the few actual physical publications included here. That editorial oversight carries a LOT of weight for citations. --McDoobAU93 14:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally reliable per above. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theme Park Review

For reference, TPR can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Generally unreliable. Most, if not all, pages on TPR are Robb Alvey's personal commentary, more akin to a blog. The website even has the following disclaimer: "You need a sense of humor to view our site, if you don't have a sense of humor, or are easily offended, please turn back now!" I don't think people outside WP:APARKS would look highly on this site, either, since it's Alvey's personal website. Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally unreliable. Agreed. One thing that sticks out to me is he reuploads POV's of rides from official sources and uses them as his own. FlyersFan1969 (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think that poses a bigger issue. If he's uploading other people's POVs without permission, then he is violating their copyright and we can't even link to these videos per WP:COPYLINK. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I could be wrong, but it may refer to POV's such as this one. Park promotional POV's that are posted and reuploaded by theme park channels. These would most definitely be copyright. Though, I think Alvey uploads his own POV's because you can hear him very loud and clear in many videos...such as the annoying "we are on a log flume". Adog (TalkCont) 20:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah that's true, Alvey does upload his own POVs. I still would not recommend using them, though, since he always feels the need to talk about every single aspect of every single ride because of his extensive opinionated commentary. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Both statements are true. Adog (TalkCont) 03:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally unreliable. Sadly, Alvey is well-traveled and probably very knowledgeable, but instead of using that knowledge for the betterment of the enthusiast community, he prefers to be contemptible to appeal to his pitiable fan base.JlACEer (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally unreliable At least for the forums. Is it appropriate to use TPR photo pages as references like in Dorney Park? Garuda3 (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unreliable – Nothing more than a personal blog full of opinions and enthusiast content. Not suitable for Wikipedia as a citation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unreliable - It's always been a fan-site and chat blog, even before the drama started. --McDoobAU93 14:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Screamscape

For reference, Screamscape can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Unreliable, given that Screamscape is a largely speculative source, as has been wrong about its information. Most prominently, with its coverage about Kumba (roller coaster) possibly closing (Web Archive May 12, 2022) - Screamscape (March 19, 2022). Adog (TalkCont) 18:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally unreliable. The site's About Us page says: "While Screamscape.com is primarily the of work of myself, I do have help and information sent in from around the world." This suggests that it is Lance Hart's personal website and should be treated with a grain of salt. The news provided by this website may be reliable, as long as it has been verified by another source. However, other content such as rumors definitely should not be included on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Screamscape's news coverage may be tainted by rumors, which is why I'm wary of using it as a reference. Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unreliable, a lot of speculation and rumors and very most likely incorrect information. I've only used Screamscape as a source only once to mention the color of supports for Pipeline: The Surf Coaster because other than a Blogspot SPS, no other source has mentioned that the supports are white colored.Harobouri TC (he/him) 19:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unreliable – And if I ever see a citation to Screamscape, it's getting removed! Violates WP:RSSELF and WP:CRYSTAL. If any of its speculation is ever worth including, a more reliable source will pick up on it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Borderline - While Screamscape generally is an individual's personal work, he does occasionally cite other sources to support his posts. So, when used to find another source, Screamscape can be useful (but only when the linked source is deemed reliable and is cited directly). If no source is given, should be treated as rumor and speculation. --McDoobAU93 14:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    McDoobAU93, it's a good point, as I have used Screamscape personally for those reasons trying to locate a good source. But in regard to Wikipedia, I'm not citing Screamscape for anything. If they list a reliable source, I'm citing that reliable source directly. If it's a statement from a reliable source that hasn't been published anywhere else, it stays out of Wikipedia, because we can deem that as insignificant. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ultimate Rollercoaster

For reference, Ultimate Rollercoaster can be found here and Ultimate Waterpark can be found here. They are both connected entities, comments go below here:

  • Reliable. May not be up to date, but Eric Gieszl has been maintaining this site for a long time and over the years I have found it to be well-researched and fairly reliable.JlACEer (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Occasionally unreliable. Best to avoid or use with caution – On a number of occasions over the years, I've had to remove citations to this source for questionable claims that either couldn't be found in other sources or for claims that contradicted other sources, such as RCDB. While I can see why someone might have it as a personal bookmark, I would not advise citing it on Wikipedia. Most experienced editors, especially in an FA review, will take one look at this site and get the immediate impression it is a personal website. They will question its status as reliable, and for good reason. In nearly every case, the information they provide can be found in better sources. The one exception for me would be old press releases. They have a decent archive of hard-to-find PRs from some parks, and I've found those to be helpful. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • With considerations, Ultimate Rollercoaster has flaws, more-so evenly with others, but its usually more reliable. I would cite it with supporting reliable sources, and try to avoid information that can be verified elsewhere. Adog (TalkCont) 17:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Mouse Trap

For reference, The Mouse Trap can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Very unreliable - I've included this only to confirm (and link in the RS table) that this satirical source should never be used. Personally, some of their content is funny but should never, ever be used for article content. They've also confirmed themselves that they are satire news here. Harobouri TC (he/him) 19:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Behind the Thrills

For reference, BTH can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Somewhat reliable, use with caution – If we had tiers of reliability, with Tier 1 being the most reliable, this site would probably be a Tier 3. In some instances, it appears to be a glorified blog offering personal accounts/opinions coupled with on-site photos. In other cases, they include quotes from park administrative staff and present things from an objective viewpoint. I've noticed some intrusive advertising as well that cover the page until you click past. For that reason, I would mostly steer clear, but it can be a decent source. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • With considerations regarding some objective construction and general amusement news (such as IAAPA coverage). I have found their coverage of certain attractions reliable, as they provide helpful photos and updates. Though, I would be wary of content such as this. Behind the Thrills appears to have some semblance of staff structure, but it remains unclear when a first-name basis is used at times. That being said, they have a timeline of the article's authors have written. In addition, in their "About" section (scrolling all the way to the bottom of the front page), they do state they post rumors. I credit coverage with tangible assets with photos or images that can verify an observation. Adog (TalkCont) 15:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amusement Insider

For reference, AI can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Unreliable, despite its well-sounded name, the information that can be found on Amusement Insider is primarily a guide to amusement parks, videos on trips, and video reviews. Founded by Austin Rdzanek, who is the apparent owner of Behind the Thrills, its mainly a platform for videos, which we would not consider reliable. The news section redirects to BTH website. Adog (TalkCont) 18:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theme Park Tourist

For reference, TPT can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Generally Unreliable, the website is run by Natalie Sim, who co-founded the 'news' service with Nick Sim until his death in 2016. Most of the articles (a good majority), are written by Sim herself, with some staff writing as well. They do post rumors about projects, and act more on the side of a blog than a news publishing service with guides thrown about, about Disney or Universal. It does not convey a broad scope of coverage with its service, with a main focus on the Orlando theme park area, specifically the two giants. Adog (TalkCont) 15:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Questionable – Can be reliable. While you will usually find better sources to cite, some articles are well-written and researched. Coaster101 actually recommends the source for news and articles (link), and they have been name-dropped by reliable sources such as TheStreet and Tampa Bay Times. However, I would only cite as a complementary source for speculation and opinion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

blooloop

For reference, blooloop can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Generally reliable staffed by those who used to work in the industry.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally reliable. Although the publication is targeted toward those in the amusement industry, it seems to have some sort of editorial process and staffed by industry journalists. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reliable – Professional presentation with well-written articles that appear to undergo an editorial process. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theme Park Tribune

For reference, TPT can be found here; comments go below here:

  • With considerations for now, I've used this source here and there some times, and TPT isn't speculative or based off of rumors. However, it is a WP:SPS, as John Gregory is the main (only) contributor of all TPT articles. Might change my view point once a second or third opinion has been made. Harobouri TC (he/him) 23:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Somewhat reliable – Professional presentation with informative articles, as shown in this piece. I share the same concern as Harobouri, however, that this is mostly a one-man show. However, Gregory has been recognized as a subject-matter expert from other reliable sources, so I think his content would pass the WP:SPS litmus test. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • With considerations when placed with a more reliable or well-established source, and depending on who the writer is. With the sentiment above, it is mostly a one-man show. I did find another contributor, Ethan, who seems more of an enthusiast than an established writer and whose reporting is more-or-less like a blog on speculation and primary observation. I would trust Gregory a bit more, as his about page is more professional sounding than Theme Park Magazine. He has established credentials in writing, the media, and with other outlets. Older reporting include an author from the Orlando Sentinel, Terry Roen and another. Adog (TalkCont) 18:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coaster Nation

For reference, Coaster Nation can be found here; comments go below here:

Comment A lot, but not all, of their content and articles are created by Dan Hower. However, they have a Join Our Team section which states that interested writers should have "familiarity with AP Style for writing or for the media". Harobouri TC (he/him) 23:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Best to avoid, Coaster Nation seems fine for an enthusiast-run webpage, with its news section really headlines another reliable source would pick up. Hower's background does not pertain to the amusement industry in full, besides a stint at the BTH network. If there is another reliable source I would use it, as this is a nice enthusiast website for directory news. Adog (TalkCont) 18:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Parkz

For reference, Parkz can be found here; comments go below here:

Comment - A lot of their recent articles are mainly Australian theme park press releases. Harobouri TC (he/him) 17:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • With considerations for some aspects of news where commentary is not primarily used, Best to avoid their database. I found Parkz pretty reliable when they covered DC Rivals HyperCoaster, as their reporting (Richard Wilson) was similar to reliable sources. Such as this piece, there can be points where reporting is essentially just photos and commentary, would avoid these. Finding a listed writers/authors page is hard to find when the staff page only states, "Our editorial team provides expert insight from around the globe". Due diligence is needed for using this website. There is a database for rides, but I would avoid this for two reasons. One, personal reviews can be added to this by anyone (see WP:USERGENERATED). Two, although the database is moderated, it can be made up by user submissions. Adog (TalkCont) 18:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OurWorlds

For reference, OW can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Best to avoid, for reasons of nearly being a WP:SPS & WP:SPONSORED. OurWorlds is a very professional-looking publication covering Australian amusement park news, and I find their articles to be generally reliable when it comes to reporting. The major ref flag I saw here was on their about page, which states, "We welcome media invites for consideration, as do we encourage sponsored content and collaborations with brands". To whom or what is sponsored, I do not know, as it does not have any clear indications on the articles. This makes it even worse when it comes to reviews, as it is entirely possible it is sponsored. More recently, the website is published by Ben Roache, who seems professional. Not many writers in this newsroom as of late, so best to avoid it because of the problems above. Adog (TalkCont) 16:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CoasterForce

For reference, CF can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Best to avoid as CoasterForce, by its own merit, is a roller coaster enthusiast community. They have many useful pages for roller coaster junkies or enthusiasts, or "goons" (please never use that). On their about page, there is some semblance of staff structure, but you will not find it on any of the news posts as they are all without a stated author/writer. I am sure their Coaster Info pages are helpful to some degree of research, but they do not cite any sources, which makes any content questionable. Records you could easily substitute for RCDB, with personal records not verified on the page itself. Accidents could have some usefulness as it does cite its sources. Most definitely avoid the glossary or forum for any reliability, as it is WP:FANCRUFT and WP:USERGENERATED. Adog (TalkCont) 17:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amusement Park Warehouse

For reference, APW can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Generally Reliable, as Amusement Park Warehouse is one of the more unique sources on this list. According to is about page, APW started as an enthusiast website for carnival rides but has grown into the product it is today. APW has a print publication, mainly covering carnival ride industry news. It also does cover amusement industry news, and has a variety of content from several authors. Avoid citing opinions as facts. Adog (TalkCont) 16:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coaster Buzz

For reference, CB can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Generally Unreliable, as a database/blog/forum. Coaster Buzz is authored by Jeff Putz, with another website having a tell-all about the subject. Coaster Buzz is a "database" and "news" website that is funded by members or outside advertising. Putz as an authored subject has seen some media recognition NPR, but much of the website is not a great source of info and acts like a personal log for the individual. The news is small headlines or a sentence or two, maybe a press release from the actual source. The database has errors, such as Python opening in 1977 (opened in 1976), or Gwazi (one side), had four vehicles. I know he means four vehicles for the entire Gwazi roller coaster, but if we cited that others would not. RCDB is a better complete source, and the news you can find on said websites. Adog (TalkCont) 17:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

News Plus Notes

For reference, NPN can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Somewhat reliable, use with caution – Similar to Theme Park Insider regarding construction updates/photos and speculative commentary, all of which I would use caution on. However, they tend to cover amusement park news from all over, and I have cited them many times in the past. Generally reliable but should be assessed as needed on a case-by-case basis. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • With considerations, for contemporary news, but generally Unreliable for questionable oversight in the reporting in its early history. They seem to have done their homework, looking into topics such as Busch Gardens Tampa Bay. They interview primary sources and present information well enough to be used as a media-published source, concerning roller coaster construction over the years and updates such as Montu's repaint.
I would deem this source unreliable for its past reporting and things they did not directly report on themselves. For one, this is posted on Blogger; it is very much an enthusiast blog run by three individuals: a self-described "amusement industry junkie" and a couple in the social work industry. Besides the obvious WP:SPS issue, it would seem there is a lack of editorial oversight on older reporting, such as Drachen Fire, which is likely false and possibly facilitated a citogensis incident with our article on Drachen Fire and the Williamsburg Yorktown Daily online news source. If true, it is a tad embarrassing. I would use a reliable source over this one but consider using it for specific updates and reports on construction where verified and has citations. Adog (TalkCont) 17:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WDW News Today

For reference, WDWNT can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Utterly unreliable - Only notable thing about this site is it actually elicited a response out of Disney itself debunking its reporting. Please don't give it any bandwidth or consideration for sourcing. --McDoobAU93 19:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unreliable, will agree with the above. Having a conflict with the company in your organization's name is not a great look for reliability, much so, as having a rumor dispelled. Much of the content (including its YouTube aspect), covers many minor changes that only the most addicted Disney fan would like to know, such as road sign color changes or Florida man news. Updates are covered so often that it would not be worth noting all of them if you wrote an article about an attraction's construction, and are not verified by the Walt Disney company. Articles are written more to the effect of getting clicks, even if the report is noteworthy to cite. Unless you really want to know about new sheathing and plaster that were added to a rumored attraction's facade, I think we can pass on this being on Wikipedia. Adog (TalkCont) 00:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

InPark Magazine

For reference, IPM can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Generally Reliable, as the InPark Magazine appears to be different from the other listed news sources. IPM is not so much from an enthusiast's perspective, but one similar to other trade publications such as Amusement Today or Funworld Magazine. The staff appear to be reliable authors, all with backgrounds in the amusement industry, some previously of the Themed Entertainment Association. They do include guest writers who have credentials in the entertainment industry. IPM is multi-media, with books, a news org., and a regular print of featured amusement topics. From the articles I have read, it seems to be accurate. A flaw is that news articles will tend to be authored by the magazine, not by an individual author, making it harder to know who authored the publishing. Adog (TalkCont) 17:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Theme Park Magazine

For reference, TPM can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Generally Unreliable for now, possibly with considerations in the following years if revisited. Theme Park Magazine has the look and feel of a reliable news website, but with a few red flags. The first is that the cite was founded in 2021, and is sponsored by The Great Oregon Steam-Up. Second, the news magazine is primarily published under the guise of Joe Tracy, the editor-at-large, resembling that of an WP:SPS. However, to his credit, he has guest writers, but the con is there are mostly (if not all) made up of freelance writers, who can publish on the platform as "it helps build your expertise". The two writers I found were an enthusiast (see below) and another freelance writer in biology and journalism. According to Tracy's Linkedin, many aspects of the magazine are "in development". Given time, this could be developed into a host of reliable information, but at present, it has to go through some growing pains to get established.
Side note: A personal gripe with statistics, but a writer wrote on the topic I also researched (Jolly Rancher Remix), and used the figure of 105 feet that the park similarly has on its official web page; rather than the given 115 feet used by RS upon opening 1, 2, 3 or the precise 116.5 feet the manufacture listed for its boomerang model. It does not seem likely that the ride is 105 feet tall, as very older reports suggested only when the ride was announced. Theme park websites also vary statistics between boomerang models. It is a small gripe, but trying nonetheless when the site has "Hours of research (that) goes into writing the article with more information, insights, and depth". Adog (TalkCont) 01:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Captain Coaster

For reference, CC can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Unreliable as it is a WP:USERGENERATED website with user opinions. Adog (TalkCont) 18:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unreliable – Nothing more than a forum. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unreliable: Absolutely nothing here has staff-posts or of the sorts, it’s just a bunch and lists of reviews that we should not be using at all. Harobouri🎢🏗️ (he/himWP:APARKS) 02:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coasters World

For reference, CW can be found here; comments go below here:

Johnnyupsidedown

For reference, JUD can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Best to avoid, as there is a clear case of personal journaling. If there were an explicit use of WP:SPS, this would be your website. John Wiencek seems to be a well-traveled enthusiast who covers some construction, trips, and personal projects on his website. I find his reporting to be generally reliable, with good photos taken during construction projects. There are some portfolios where he was more active than others, but he does cite reliable figures in instances of media tours. Generally, his photos are accompanied by commentary about what happened between x and y dates, similar to a Midway Mayhem video posted on a website. His information is useful, but I am sure reliable sources could publish these same logs, and best avoided for now unless accompanied by another reliable source. Adog (TalkCont) 16:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coaster Critic

For reference, CC can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Reliable – The author, Joel Bullock, is a subject-matter expert that has been interviewed/recognized by reputable sources. Cite with confidence. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • With considerations for news reporting and reviews; avoiding "showdowns", trip reports, or "coasterology" and the like. Joel seems to be an established self-described Coaster Critic with many reviews of attractions and coverage from reliable sources. I am sure his reviews may be acceptable, maybe even news when paired with a reliable source. Others write for the website, such as Bobbie, Jon, or Eric to name a few. I would give due consideration to these authors, as they are lesser known. The website is very much an enthusiast blog, with content like this that should never appear in an article. I would be ok with their coasterology (especially with their views on "hybrid-roller coasters" becoming more mainstream), but very unsure of its reliability if it were to be an authoritative source on the matter. Adog (TalkCont) 17:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roller Coaster Philosophy

For reference, RCP can be found here; comments go below here:

Coaster Net

For reference, CN can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Best to avoid and generally Unreliable, Coaster Net has their news headlines with full stories available on reliable sources websites or redirects to unreliable enthusiast blogs. CN has a basic staff structure, with some enthusiast milestone credentials. Looking at the owner's Twitter is an eyesore like PatP-owner Bob; it does not strike me as professional. There are better sources out there. Adog (TalkCont) 17:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Point Buzz

For reference, PB can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Generally Unreliable as with Coaster Buzz. A lot of the news is headlines or redirected to more reliable sources. I think we can pass on Point Buzz. Adog (TalkCont) 17:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attraction Source

For reference, AS can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Seems reliable - Several of the articles about rollercoasters under construction have references to the appropriate recently-submitted planning documents, some archives of former attractions with photos of them, and some information about the construction processes of other rides also have some photographic evidence. As a sidenote, TowersTimes is part of AS, but specifically with info about Alton Towers instead of UK theme parks in general. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talkedits) 16:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally Reliable, if not, with an established source for acceptable reporting on news, construction, or history. I am not too familiar with UK theme parks and news, so if someone is, please back up or counter my observations. Attraction Source seems to have an established team of web designers, 'creators', and media personnel. They cover various topics, from trip reports, news, construction in the making, guides, and more. I would most definitely avoid guides and trip reports, these would not fly in an article for factual reporting. They seem to have a good breakdown for upcoming attractions through their paperwork. Professional appearance and reporting appear valid. Adog (TalkCont) 17:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pixels at the Park

For reference, PatP can be found archived here; comments go below here:

  • Best to avoid Pixels at the Park as being an enthusiast account of construction updates of central Florida theme parks. PatP closed sometime in the 2010s as fast as it was started, and I had noticed them in the past for their reporting on Busch Gardens Tampa construction. Their team was made up of general enthusiast reporters that were slowly tacked on during the years. Reporting seems reasonably reliable, but it is one of those situations where the construction updates were commonplace that it is not encyclopedic to utilize. Best leave this in the internet archive for enthusiasts to enjoy, not the encyclopedia.
Addendum, their owner, Bob, also raves to different companies over Twitter about minute nonsensical garbage. Seems like reporting was better time served than complaining about a hostess at Cracker Barrel. Adog (TalkCont) 17:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

InterPark

For reference, IP can be found here; comments go below here:

  • Generally Reliable, as InterPark is an established magazine with ties in the amusement industry, being a business-to-business consortium. Their reporting appears to be reliable, with a print magazine on international theme park topics, including the Middle East and China, which is fairly unique for a public magazine on the amusement industry (also makes a tremendous page-flipping sound). A lot of the online face-valued content is handled by a David Whitworth having an established background in sports, news, and editorial oversight. Adog (TalkCont) 17:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Implementing new ideas: Guides, new collaboration, visual makeover

Apologizes for making another big discussion when I just created a new one above, but I wanted to add more upon our implementation of the draft proposal by Adog regarding the future of WikiProject Amusement Parks. If you got pinged for the discussion above, that would also be my invitation to this discussion as well, and I hope you all can comment on implementation of the following ideas:

New ideas + implement: Guides

Some of our biggest focuses from the draft proposal were assessing notability and reliable sources. Once we've reached consensus for the reliable source discussion, I believe we should create a set of guides for assessing notability and reliable sources. The list of reliable sources one is in user space currently.

Our current guide found at WP:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Standards is a content style content guide only and does not mention notability or reliable sources. This is why I'm now suggesting one guide about notability and one guide about the list of reliable sources, or having one for both. As mentioned before, the list of reliable sources is in progress, and you may see the current draft in user space or talk about it in #RSD.

My idea for a notability guide would be addressing sources like press releases and how just because a roller coaster is on RCDB doesn't mean it warrants an article. If you have more ideas, that would be great! Harobouri TC (he/him) 19:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All of the points provided I agree with and support further discourse. Notability may be merged as a new section within the Standards tab, with the reliable sources its own tab. I like the look of the table and section splits you have in the sandbox. For sources, JlACEer, Gaurda3, and DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast are already providing good points on the validity of enthusiast-news orgs, and what we should pay attention to.
I think one of the unwritten notability rules we have is that new articles should generally not be created until significant construction and coverage is already in place. Whether that is or is not accurate, I think it is a good rule of thumb. A one-off announcement at the IAAPA Expo would and should not be enough. It also gives wiggle room for possible projects that are anticipated to be notable, that could fall through and not be notable after all. Adog (TalkCont) 05:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, we don't have a lot of notability rules, in my opinion, so I'm planning having reliable sources located here, and its talk page as a noticeboard. I see a lot of articles being created once a theme park has officially announced it, which is good because it gives news sources to report on it, giving it significant coverage overtime.
Some things I've noticed is that there's three to six significant coverage events in a 21st century roller coaster/ride's lifetime to prove notability, and a ride should probably meet four of these criteria. The first is pre-announcement/teasers, the development process. The second is official announcement, the time where the park confirms with no basis on speculation or leaks. The third is construction, such as the time where ride goes vertical, etc. 3.5 is when ride trains are talked more about at something like IAAPA expo. The fourth is grand opening and reviews, this is the most important event in coverage (imo) as there will be a lot of media, especially if the ride is record-breaking. The fifth is incidents that occur, something we don't want to think about, and the last is imminent closure, something that is disappointing to many of us roller coaster enthusiasts. A rule in Notability could be "If creating an article on an existing ride then a ride should fulfill three - four of these criteria." Iffy about future ride articles.
"Leaks" of documents def. should NEVER be used as a reliable source or notability, even if news outlets have reported on it, because it just violates what Wikipedia isn't. I've seen Fandom sites do this (nothing against them because I've done this on Fandom too) and the naming is like "2022 unannounced Fiesta Texas roller coaster" so we should not do that (something worth mentioning in notability, but I feel like I just went off topic). I also def. agree about the one-off announcements.
If I went off topic please LMK. --Harobouri TC (he/him) 13:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've created a Notability draft here: User:Harobouri/APARKS RS draft/AParks N Draft. --Harobouri TC (he/him) 13:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd approve of this notability criteria staging. I would say fulfill two to three of the requirements, as likely it would have notability with the combination of any of those factors; four might be a reach. I theorize, as with the assumption, "Construction" and "Announcement" are the most important factors for upcoming attraction/park for new articles. Without an announcement, construction taking place is likely just speculation. Without construction, it's either a rumor or nothing yet, or something could happen to derail it. This establishes the WP:APARKS equivalent of WP:TOOSOON. I would like to hear what other editors think. Adog (TalkCont) 14:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, I'm currently working on the draft and discovered something. Let's use the ride Mardi Gras Hangover as an example. If the ride has been announced and covered significantly in multiple reliable sources, but a name for the ride has not been revealed, what would the article name be? Mardi Gras Hangover was not named until Valentine's Day 2018. Before then, it was just advertised as "World's Largest Loop Coaster," so would it be named that, would the article not be named or did I just forgot to read a certain guide. Thanks! -- Harobouri🎢🏗️ (he/himWP:APARKS) 23:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In film, we wait until the film enters production to create the article. If the title hasn't been revealed yet, then we would call the article something like, "Untitled fourth Matrix film" as was decided here. For roller coasters, I'm not sure we need to go to such great lengths in creating the article once construction starts. To me, it would be satisfactory just to have everything documented/cited in the main amusement park article until a name is released. Just my 2¢! --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment – A few things to keep in mind about notability. First, you may find comments at the last stalled discussion useful. Even junior roller coasters, small flat rides, and other minor attractions will get press coverage. Almost every new attraction will generate some kind of publicity, but years later when it gets removed, there's hardly a blip in verifiable news: comes in with a bang, leaves without a whisper. Editors can be left scrambling for updated park maps and attraction lists at the park's main web page, making removal difficult. So as we contemplate the WikiProject's recommendations for inclusion, we'll need a set of criteria that takes smaller, insignificant rides into account. Many of those should not have dedicated articles for obvious reasons, and some may not even warrant a mention within the park's main article. And despite any well-intentioned efforts here, nothing we suggest would override WP:GNG and WP:V, especially WP:ONUS, when it comes to inclusion. The key will be for editors to determine if an attraction has enduring historical significance, a concept that may mean different things to different editors. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Implement: New collaboration and exposure

As brought up in the DP by Adog, we should make use of both our current barn star awards and end Operation B&M, creating a new collaboration. Our new collaboration could be something about de-stubifying articles because those are our current barnstars? Not really sure. If you have any ideas on that topic, please absolutely feel free to drop comments.

Additionally, it was agreed that in Member participation and involvement that we should bring more editors and activity towards Amusement Parks. Points A (welcoming committee for new members) and C (APARKS HoF) could definitely be done, and it could encourage new editors and those new to this WikiProject to edit more about our topic like how HotMess mentioned. Elaborating more on point C, maybe we could have a nomination page and members could agree/disagree? Not entirely sure. No comment on B (Newsletter revival) and D (WL) for now. Harobouri TC (he/him) 19:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De-stubifying could be a good starting point. We may also change the objective meaning of one of our barnstars (thinking The Coaster Barnstar), as two out of three pertain to destubing articles. Other topics worth exploring to collaborate could include promoting certain sets of articles to better quality, such as theme park operators and their parks, different roller coaster manufacturers, important roller coaster figures, a type of roller coasters, general roller coaster pages.
For A and C, would definitely pursue further. HotMess did make a userbox which I thought was very inclusive and fun for roller coaster junkies/enthusiasts. Maybe making more templates or ads could help? Definitely posting a talk page welcome could encourage new editors. I would like to know what others have in mind. For HoF, I would agree with the idea of a nomination and criteria that would encourage long-term participation, such as being active for x-amount of time in the project, promoting x-amount of articles to WP:GA or WP:FA, actively monitoring existing articles, and/or providing valuable information for others (possibly more or less).
For B, we could possibly do a test run with more editors. For D, I am currently working on an unconventional, non-comprehensive research guide in my sandbox that I would encourage others to add to, edit, or remove information. I am using personal methods to add to this research guide, maybe sharing our ways of researching can benefit each other and ourselves? Adog (TalkCont) 05:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Coaster Barnstar has been awarded to around three people, so a change of objective for that barnstar wouldn't hurt anyone badly. Your collaboration idea is really great actually, and I think it's do-able. Thinking about the names for collaboration is really fun too, like Six Flags Trimester or Bi-Giga, but I'm not creative with naming so...
More userboxes would also be helpful in bringing others toward this WikiProject as well. I know somewhere out there there's of roller coaster enthusiasts or theme park connoisseur editors, experienced or new. Welcoming new members would be giving them motivation and encouragement! Let's also not forget quicklinks!!
We def. should recruit more editors and active contributors first before we revive into becoming one of the few active WikiProject newsletters. The research guide is a must and we should not throw that idea out! If we had that back in May 2022 when I joined this WikiProject, I think it would help me avoid the mistakes I made, but again, we should all learn from mistakes. I think sharing our methods (and crediting ourselves through fun, quirky names) would make new members feel included! --Harobouri TC (he/him) 12:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've had an idea that might help to hook some more people in.
Probably a 'nice work!'/'participation award' or something. Basically, if someone who isn't in the WikiProject makes a nice contribution/is doing good work on an Amusement Parks article, maybe drop them a 'hey you're doing good work, wanna join our cult WikiProject?'-style award on their talk page, to entice them in to find out more, and maybe even join and then ascend beyond the ranks of the un-initiated GP.
After all, how else are they going to see the cool thoosie userbox/welcoming committee /otherwise find out that this WikiProject exists and then get involved in it? 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talkedits) 23:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I love that idea!! Something along the lines of "Thank you for your contributions on articles within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks!" then some small text below saying "If you are interested in amusement parks, roller coasters and/or rides, learn more about us here, and maybe even sign up atParticipants page!" Just a thought, because like I stated before, I def. know there is more editors, experienced or new, out there interested in amusement parks that don't know about APARKS yet. --Harobouri🎢🏗️ (he/himWP:APARKS) 23:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Currently I am in the process of creating new userboxes (along with the guide and checking source reliability). Check them out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Templates and let me know how it looks. I will be making some new ones over the course of however long, I got a list of phrases to input and create. Adog (TalkCont) 04:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks great! Harobouri🎢🏗️ (he/himWP:APARKS) 11:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New ideas: Visual and project page makeover

To be honest, the menu looks dated, especially considering it was created in the early-2010s and received little additions since then. That's why I've used the {{Start tab}} template to create a new menu which is also, currently in my sandbox. We could also have those side bars like other WikiProjects do (like WP Military History and WP Video Games) to draw new members to our subpages and guides to get started on APARKS.

Could you tell that I based a lot of ideas from other WikiProjects? For our main page, we could re-do and again, draw those viewing our WikiProject to our guides, and talk about how editors can help + topics we cover (like WP military history, again). What are your thoughts though? Could we keep our current project pages as if or continue with these makeovers? Harobouri TC (he/him) 19:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The project could use an visual upgrade. I think it looks to be in the middle, visually when it comes to other WikiProjects. A side bar could be good for navigation. We should definitely keep all the tabs we currently have, as they all have useful purpose or historical significance. Maybe we can all pick a color scheme like park's do for roller coasters; and use it for our metaphorical track and support structure. Adog (TalkCont) 05:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adog: I love the color scheme idea! I think that would make us stand out from the other WikiProjects while attempting to be like the WikiProjects, if you get what I'm saying. We should pick on a color/hex that is visually appealing, one that doesn't blind us. I absolutely derived everything from another WikiProject, and I cannot understand wikitext so if anyone could help me with that I would absolutely love that.
I did have a navigation side bar for a short while at this diff but again, for the life of me I couldn't work it out so then I just gave up for now. The concept for that navigation side bar was (based on the diff and wikitext) that the ones that are not in a collapsable header were Main page, Talk, Assessment and Participants subpages, while we had a Resources section which had guide pages as another section and something I call "page relations" with pages like featured content and popular pages. Task forces and related WikiProject sections were also a section too. If anyone would like to pursue it, or move it into a user page where we all can work on it, I think it would be amazing! --Harobouri TC (he/him) 12:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The task forces page could use an uplift too. --Harobouri🎢🏗️ (he/himWP:APARKS) 03:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've redone the task force a little in my sandbox by adding some related sectioning. Thoughts?? Harbouri🎢🏗️ (he/himThis is an alt account) 19:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That looks pretty good, I am sure all the task forces need an update given it has been a while. Adog (TalkCont) 06:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup - and I'm pretty sure the {{Task force}} template will help as well! Harobouri🎢🏗️ (he/himWP:APARKS) 11:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies for my impatientness, but additionally, I would like to take advantage of the article alerts and featured/good content automated bot features, so if there is any way I could import this idea (which I updated today) into project-space, that would be great! Harobouri🎢🏗️ (he/himWP:APARKS) 12:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, so in my sandboxes I've created the concepts for a individual task force page and the main task force page. Thoughts? Harobouri🎢🏗️ (he/himWP:APARKS) 01:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Implementing new menu/start tab

How do we feel about implementing the new start tab/menu? You can see it here. --Harobouri TC (he/him) 22:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not hateful, but I was thinking more along these lines: WP:APARKS Menu
Here's a list of other things I changed:
  1. Kept the Participants tab near the beginning as other projects tend to do. It's one of the first tabs we want new visitors to spot.
  2. Changed "Structure & Standards" to just "Article standards". To me, seems more self-explanatory on where one can find help creating a new article. Another good option would be simply "Help".
  3. "Featured content" should really be something more simple like "Spotlight", because the page shows off good articles as well. We could also merge "Popular pages" into a subsection underneath this tab.
  4. Truly got rid of text wrapping in the tab names.
  5. Increased font size and added a border.
While we're at it, I figured let's get rid of the stale black and gray colors. I also think we should consider merging "Task forces" underneath "Collaboration". Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think all the changes are great! If we were thinking about keeping the "WikiProject Amusement Parks," bar at the top, could we maybe change the font to differentiate from our current one, or maybe come up with a logo? --Harobouri🎢🏗️ (he/himWP:APARKS) 12:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Menu's looking great. Task force could go under Collab., it makes sense. The side bar idea I generally like as well. The only concern I have is where we would put new tabs if they were to go into effect. Mainly there is the Hall of Fame (HOF) to encourage participation and give credit to long-term editors (thinking the retired ones), Notability guideline for our articles, and a Research guide for old an new comers. Adog (TalkCont) 14:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also the WP:APARKS reliable source tab. How did I forget that? Adog (TalkCont) 15:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A bunch of this would be squished, so maybe it could be on the Main page of APARKS, in a side bar, or we could have a bar named "Guides" and link to the different guides like a disambig. Harbouri🎢🏗️ (he/himThis is an alt account) 18:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like a sound idea. Maybe associated links can be found in the existing tabs we have to add to navigation. Adog (TalkCont) 17:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With Task forces put under Collab, we would have plenty of room for a new tab called "Hall of fame". I like that idea, BTW! The notability guidelines for the project could be a subsection under "Article standards", so that takes care of that. Then we can rename the "Templates" tab as "Research" or "Resources" (think I prefer the latter), and put everything there concerning reliable sources, templates, and other things we want newcomers to see.
As for the WAP bar at the top and changing its font, I can look into that. Should be possible. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds ideal within the range of pages we have. :) Adog (TalkCont) 06:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sidebar recommendation

I see some chatter above about using a sidebar. Not opposed, but we do probably need to be mindful of clutter. Is there a live example of this being used somewhere that we can look at? I can help pull that over into a sandbox to play with an example. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know I've used these WikiProjects a lot in examples but Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games have two sidebars. Harbouri🎢🏗️ (he/himThis is an alt account) 20:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Wardley and Alton Towers

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Saw – The Ride § Designer. Thank you. – GoneIn60 (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Articles for improvement star.svg

Hello,
Please note that Kiddie ride, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI teamReply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Amusement_Parks&oldid=1134367261"