Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks

Add topic
Active discussions
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.

Discussion at Black HoleEdit

Additional community feedback is needed at Talk:Black Hole (roller coaster)#Lack of proper sourcing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ednör – L'Attaque / Serial ThrillerEdit

Was bummed to see Ednör – L'Attaque deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ednör – L'Attaque. I knew this ride as Serial Thriller (Astroworld). Are any project members more familiar with notability criteria for amusement rides able to double check and make sure Wikipedia shouldn't have an entry for this ride? Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

What concerns me is that it was never listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Amusement parks where it might have generated some discussion. I had no idea it was being considered for deletion, and now that it is gone, there is no way to know what information was on that page. It was at least as notable as Thunderhawk (Michigan's Adventure) and could have had a similar page had we been given the chance to improve the article.JlACEer (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Ditto Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunder River (ride). What a bummer!

@Explicit: I am concerned these deletion discussions are not being seen by this WikiProject. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I deleted all of these pages as WP:SOFTDELETE due to minimal participation, so they can be restored upon request if others plan to work on them or merge the content elsewhere. Courtesy ping to 1234qwer1234qwer4, who initiated these AFDs. plicit 00:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Explicit: What do we need to do to get these pages restored? There are already two discussions ongoing, I don't want to start a third on your talk page. Since there had been no discussion and no one notified any of the editors who had contributed or posted a notice to a location where it might have been seen, I think we have enough reasons for the deletions to be undone. There are plenty of legitimate references to be found and I can work on improving these articles — although not right away.JlACEer (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@JlACEer: See Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Thunder_River_(ride) ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
And Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Ednör_–_L'Attaque ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Would anyone be willing to make a list of all the undeleted pages? If they haven't been already, the talk pages should be tagged with {{Old XfD multi}}. plicit 14:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

AfD: Canyon BlasterEdit

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

Status field for Amusement Park infoboxesEdit

Question: Should we add "Defunct" to the list of statuses for amusement park infoboxes? Here's how the change would look:

  • Before: Planned, Under construction, Operating, Closed, Removed
  • After: Planned, Under construction, Operating, Closed, Defunct

The last discussion (from way back in 2016): WT:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Archive 3#Status fields in attraction articles.

The result of that discussion only seemed to cover attractions and not specifically amusement parks. Since an amusement park can be abandoned for years or even decades, "Defunct" would be a good placeholder in place of "Closed", which in past discussions can be interpreted as temporary and not permanent. If you type "Defunct" into the status field now, it automatically resolves to "Removed". That doesn't fit for abandoned parks with remnants still standing (e.g. Six Flags New Orleans, LeSourdsville Lake Amusement Park). "Defunct" would cover both "Removed" and "Permanently closed".

Anyone oppose or other thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • In favor. Sounds like a good solution.JlACEer (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • We hadn't been tracking these on the Amusement Park infobox because there was only consensus to limit statuses on the attraction templates. For this discussion I created categories for the various statuses, so we can see how they're currently being used: Category:Amusement parks by status. Of particular note are the pages in Category:Amusement park articles with custom statuses ( 2 ), which don't use one of the values that the template recognizes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahecht (talkcontribs) 19:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for providing a way to track those. We can look into the outliers like we did last time around with attractions. Shouldn't be an issue getting those cleaned up. As for this change, it's really minor in the grand scheme of things, so I don't expect there will be much pushback. Just going through the motions at this point! --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a good idea to me. However, would it be worth having "Defunct" in addition to "Removed" (i.e. Planned, Under construction, Operating, Temporarily closed, Defunct, Removed)? – Epicgenius (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for weighing in. I thought about that, but then I was thinking it would be nice to just have one status that covers both bases – "still standing" and "removed" – instead of providing two that are somewhat interchangeable. That way we can set it and forget it, and not worry about mini, drive-by edit wars where IPs constantly flip it back and forth between the two. We used to see that in attraction articles, where statuses frequently changed back and forth between Defunct and Demolished. Just my 2¢. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)]
  • Isn't SBNO (Standing But Not Operating) a better differentiation for rides that have closed but not been removed (either could be permanent or temporary), and then a "removed" status separately which clarifies this? --Aadams (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • SBNO is usually used to refer to rides, not parks. --Ahecht (TALK
      ) 14:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
      • In addition, I believe SBNO is still fan jargon for the status of a roller coaster or theme park and not widely used as terminology in reliable sources. It may also confuse a reader not familiar with the terminology in infoboxs. Adog (TalkCont) 14:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
        Yes, and that actually came up in the 2016 discussion linked above, where it was decided to avoid the use of SBNO. Instead of fan jargon, we should describe using plain English that is self-explanatory to non-experts and non-enthusiasts alike. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I would be in favor replacing closed with defunct, as it can cover a wider category of amusement parks. Defunct would also cover amusement parks that are abandoned before construction or during construction (i.e. Universal Studios Dubailand, Wonderland Amusement Park (Beijing)). It also fixes the temporary aspect of the status might have and reduce frequent changes. Though while we are here, I am also a bit timid by the use of the planning status. Would an amusement park article be viable even in its planning stages? Would that make the status then redundant? Adog (TalkCont) 14:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    "Would an amusement park article be viable even in its planning stages?"
    Could you explain a bit further? Are you asking if an article would even exist during the planning stages? If so, then yes, it could exist prior to opening once it moves past an announcement and into a development stage. Then "Planned" would change to "Under construction" once ground is broken.
    As for "Closed" being replaced, I think that status is still needed for situations where a park may close temporarily with an understanding it will be reopening at some point. "Defunct", which implies a permanent status, wouldn't work in those situations. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    To the statement, if an article is viable if a theme park was just announced or where there has not been significant physical development. Similar to the trend on Wikipedia roller coaster articles (that I have seen), we usually won't start them if they are just announced. Only do we start when there is physical happenings and more sources. I'll borrow a point from the roller coaster discussion. Planning is not necessary as it is in the nature of WP:NOTNEWS because of its non-enduring notability status. By the time it has lasting notability its either in construction or stagnant.
    On closed, I would agree, but temporary closures is not a status we should play around with either per WP:TRAVELGUIDE. I understand the statement, but to the misinformed, that would also open the possibility of adding the "closed" status when amusement parks are not in an operating season which is unnecessary. Adog (TalkCont) 16:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, all good points. In this day and age, land clearing, drainage pipes, and other forms of construction usually take place prior to an official announcement. After the press release, then there's an official breaking ground ceremony at some point. So the status "Planned" may be obsolete anymore. We usually skip that stage and go right to "Under construction" by the time the park is officially announced. Universal's Epic Universe is a good example of one that went through that recently. For comparison's sake, the WP:FILM project typically avoids creating articles for new films until principal photography has begun, which for our project is the equivalent to construction beginning.
    Back on closed, I was thinking more along the lines of a park that goes through a lengthy, non-seasonal closure. For example, a park that has financial issues, closes, gets bought by a bigger fish and reopens a year or so later. During that time, we can't really mark it Operating or Defunct. And while there's always the concern that editors will misuse "Closed" for seasonal closures (I encountered some of that last winter season), that's something we're already going to have to deal with on attraction articles, since "Closed" is one of those statuses. It doesn't happen often enough to be that much of a concern. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    I see the land on which you stand and I agree with its dimensions. It is hard to define if something has really ceased function as in being defunct. It may be more of historical context than anything that we classify something as closed rather than defunct. For now, I think closed is a good parameter to keep with defunct. I'd be happy to let others chime in too about how we feel about planning. Adog (TalkCont) 22:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I support using defunct as well. For the reasons listed above, it seems like the most all-encompassing word as opposed to removed. Windyshadow32 (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Additional proposalEdit

  • Cancelled

Sorry to clutter this up folks, but after looking at the multiple parks with non-standard statuses, it appears we need another status to represent cancelled projects that were never completed. "Defunct" doesn't really work for those. I propose adding "Cancelled". If anyone wants to weigh in on that as well, please do. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support this as well, I can immediately think of two off the top of my head that would fall under the category of cancelled, Space City USA and Disney's America. Windyshadow32 (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • To my other point above about contextual history, cancelled would be fine to add as it may not fit the parameters of a defunct project or a closed one. Adog (TalkCont) 22:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


Ahecht, looks like this may be all the feedback we end up getting, but there doesn't appear to be any opposition to making the proposed status field update:

  • Cancelled, Planned, Under construction, Operating, Closed, Defunct

Would appreciate your assistance making the change, and I'd be happy to follow behind and update the template documentation. It would be great if you could get "Demolished" and "Removed" to resolve to "Defunct", and the alternative spelling of "Canceled" to resolve to "Cancelled". Also if you have time, I was thinking about consolidating the "Location" parameters (|Location2, |Location3) into just one "Location" if it's not too much work. To avoid breaking existing infoboxes, we'd have to make that backward compatible to accept the old parameters, but moving forward, I'd like to simplify this field in the template doc as well (though this is a secondary concern). --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Rec Recent changes to Jantzen Beach CarouselEdit

I felt compelled to revert recent changes to Jantzen Beach Carousel, even though I believe the editor was attempting to update the entry in good faith. Not only was too much text changed at once, but some of the claims were poorly sourced and others contradicted previously used sources. If any editors want to help make Wikipedia-compliant improvements, please feel free to help out! I've started a discussion on the talk page and hope the editor will engage. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

AfD: Magic Kingdom ParadeEdit

Please see WP:Articles for deletion/Magic Kingdom Parade (2nd nomination) and consider adding this page to your watchlist. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware)Edit

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)

Six Flags Great EscapeEdit

Article may need to be moved from "The Great Escape and Hurricane Harbor" to "Six Flags Great Escape". Please see Talk:The Great Escape and Hurricane Harbor#Official name change?. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding POVs to ride articlesEdit

I experimented with this idea a few days ago by adding some ride POVs available on Commons to their corresponding articles. Surprisingly, there aren't many on Commons. Imagine being a person who has never heard of this roller coaster before, looking it up, checking Wikipedia, and being able to watch a POV of it without having to go to YouTube. You'll see some videos that are Creative Commons ride POVs. For example here. You could also do some digging on other places where you could find Creative Commons POVs. So my idea is to start adding more Creative Commons POVs to roller coaster articles. RanDom 404 (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

POVs could certainly be useful in articles. However, I would be hesitant about any POV inclusion and stick to a standard where the video is of decent quality, has no obstructed views, and is not overtly shakey (plus that they are properly licensed to be uploaded to Wikipedia). Adog (TalkCont) 19:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, TheCoasterScoop's POVs are extremely high quality, and almost all listed under Creative Commons license, which YouTube says grants the rights for it to be reused. RanDom 404 (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
OK, would you mind explaining this in more detail? The main issues with linking to videos on YouTube (and other streaming sites) is that it can be seen as an attempt to drive traffic to a particular channel (or content creator), as well as concerns over copyright (the channel owner may tell you it's their content, but there's no guarantee). Here are some links I recommend visiting if you haven't already:
If the videos are from verified channels that could also pass as a reliable source, then in general, I don't see any harm in providing a link to the video in the "External links" section. But local consensus at any article can always decide against having it, and it may end up getting axed when an article gets nominated for FA. Also, I would be particularly cautious about using YouTube as an inline citation like you did in your examples. They're a better fit when treated as a "more information" external link on Wikipedia as opposed to "proof" something is accurate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

IronGargoyle, I noticed you are mass-adding POVs to roller coaster articles. Not sure if you're aware of this discussion, so I've pinged you here. I've noticed that you are selecting "Canobie Coasters" on YouTube for the source in many of these, which strikes me as odd. For Top Thrill Dragster, for example, why not use official POVs when they exist? For the reasons stated above, this can be seen as a blatant attempt to drive traffic to particular channel, and one that isn't even a verified channel. Care to explain the reasoning behind that? --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

If the POVs are CC licensed, as alluded to above by RanDom, then they could be downloaded from YouTube then uploaded to Commons. Then the POV video could be embedded in the article directly as a video, with no YouTube involved. Then there would be no trouble with driving traffic to a particular channel. Leijurv (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, these are CC licensed and uploaded to Commons. They are not driving traffic to a channel (unless people want to follow the attribution and source). If you see any other YouTubers that upload high-quality coaster stuff under a free license, that would be great to upload too. Canobie Coasters is just the first channel I noticed that was doing it. Official channels would be fine if the license was free. As far as I can tell though, Cedar Fair does not freely license their videos. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Leijurv and IronGargoyle, thanks for the explanation. That clears the first hurdle regarding licensing, which is a big one. Beyond that, however, we should probably set abide by a standard for quality. POVs should be professionally-mounted cameras that only shake with the train, or at the very least, should retain the same position/perspective throughout the course of the ride. In addition, we should opt for videos where you can't hear what riders are saying. A few screams and background noise is no issue, IMO. I haven't reviewed all the recently-added videos, but one that seems to fail this proposed standard is the one added to Anaconda. Riders can be heard, the perspective shifts slightly throughout the ride, and it's not exactly smooth at times.
I think in those situations, instead of housing a 3rd-party POV on Commons, we simply provide an external link to an official POV. In fact, in many cases the official POV will be preferred. The exception to that general rule is if you want to provide video of the off-ride experience, in which case, uploading freely-licensed videos to Commons would actually be preferred. Interested to hear what others think. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
**Note: Pinging some of the other active editors on the project – Adog, Elisfkc, Jedi94, JlACEer, McDoobAU93, Varnent, and Windyshadow32 – who may want to weigh in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) On a smaller note, I did not get the ping GoneIn60 so you might have to try again :P, but I am watching nonetheless while editing BGT. Adog (TalkCont) 16:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we should get caught up on video quality. An adequate-quality, freely-licensed video is better than no video or an unfree video of better quality. Should we improve the video quality with better freely-licensed alternatives when available? Absolutely, but there is not always lot of freely-licensed content out there. I think external links can be helpful sometimes, but we should never replace adequate freely-licensed content with external links. Quality can be judged on a case-by-case basis. I feel like setting up arbitrary standards related to sound and image stability run contrary to WP:NOTBURO. Noise is important for some viewers to understand which elements riders find more thrilling. You can always mute your speakers if you don't want to hear it. I've only cut out noise when I felt there was an issue with copyrighted audio (that wasn't de minimis). IronGargoyle (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I am on the fence. I think the inclusion of freely-licensed videos on Wikipedia does improve article quality. However, I do agree with the 'arbitrary' standards about quality. While we should stride for the inclusion of any media where there is none, if there are more acceptable mediums available and already on Wikipedia, we should not have scrape for the bottom of the barrel and include lower-quality add-ons.
Videos are subject to the same scrutiny as images. For this reason, I would refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Like images, videos should be a visual aid to the viewer. If we already have plenty of visual aids on the article, I do not think we necessarily always need a video embedded on the Wiki-page where external links can be used as a substitute. As an example, Sand Serpent has plenty of quality images, and the addition of File:Sand Serpent Busch Gardens Tampa Mack Wild Mouse POV.webm can help aid in the visual experience; however, the video can be easily substituted by the textual description (ride experience section) in the article as the POV faces the sky most of the ride.
As for my opinion not based on guidelines, I think sound is important as it enhances the visual experience, but it is subject to the uploader's discretion. I would rather have a soundless video of a log flume POV than Robb Alvey proclaiming "we are on a log flume" :P. Adog (TalkCont) 16:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in, Adog. I can't say I disagree with any of those points! As for IronGargoyle's response...
"I feel like setting up arbitrary standards related to sound and image stability run contrary to WP:NOTBURO" – I agree that we shouldn't be "setting up" these standards arbitrarily. Existing advice in the MOS about image quality, as well as general video standards we've abided by in the past, should be a factor. We should always treat guidance in this realm as simply a guideline and not some hard & fast rule.
"Noise is important for some viewers to understand which elements riders find more thrilling." – I don't believe anyone is disagreeing. General noise (i.e. screams, laughs, etc.) are fine, as I mentioned earlier. Where I'd draw the line is hearing banter, speech, and general talk from the riders. Either that should be edited out, or we should skip videos that contain it. Just my 2¢ anyway.
Quality is always going to be a subjective thing, and the need to include video will vary from article to article. I don't think the default should be to include, because that forces us to look for "the best of what's available". When there's a freely-licensed video that satisfies both quality and article need, then let's include it. When that's not the case, linking to an official POV that was professionally recorded is a very good alternative and may even be the best option in some cases. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not saying that we include videos which are absolute garbage and I'm not saying we shouldn't have standards of quality. There were quite a few videos I chose not to copy over from YouTube because of really bad camera angles, back seat videography, poor lighting, and the like. They didn't show the ride experience and so were unhelpful. I just think we can discuss these issues on a case-by-case basis. That's the whole principle of WP:NOTBURO. There are project-wide image and video guidelines, and these videos are still subject to those. If our standards were to exclude any videos with rider banter, for example, I think those standards would be unrealistically high. These are filmed in live-park conditions and it's impossible to control what the other riders say. These videos are not simple to get. You need proper camera equipment and the park will not always allow you to film even then.
Honestly, the biggest quality issue I've been running into has been custom intros and outros which promote a YouTube channel (e.g., File:Fury 325 Carowinds POV.webm, File:Twisted Colossus Six Flags Magic Mountain POV.webm). I've been trying to edit them out with Commons:VideoCutTool, but I've been running into technical problems. In any case, a central goal of Wikipedia is that we have encyclopedia articles that rely as little on unfree materials as possible. Removing freely-licensed videos and replacing them with unfree external links is directly contrary to that purpose. Maybe we should encourage the parks to freely license their footage instead of stressing over a few bad camera angles or chatty people in the scarce footage we do have. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Understood. Definitely appreciate the effort you've put into this. Just looking to vet this before it runs rampant, but I do believe it's a net benefit to Wikipedia and the community. Are you screen-recording the videos, modifying as needed, and then uploading to Commons? If so, I can probably help in that regard. I use Davinci Resolve to post-edit a lot of video in my spare time. Just let me know. As for encouraging parks to freely license the POVs, that's an idea. Of course, we'd still be limited in capturing those without a watermark. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The specific method of capturing video from YouTube is probably a gray area best not discussed in depth. While it's perfectly legal for YouTube videos appropriately licensed as creative commons, not every YouTube video is licensed as such, and therefore such tools could be seen as copyright protection countermeasures, see youtube-dl#RIAA takedown request as an example that ran into legal trouble because it captured the actual datastream from YouTube to the browser in a way that circumvented YouTube's efforts against this, rather than simply as you say screen recording the video being displayed. Leijurv (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh I just realized that we have an entire article on how best to do this: Comparison of YouTube downloaders hahahah never mind then Leijurv (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
For the record, I was only referring to the capture of videos marked with a CC BY license. More specifically, I was offering assistance with post-editing (after the video is obtained) in case that wasn't clear! --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I used video2commons, as my own computer is a steaming heap of garbage (and honestly, it's a very simple tool to use). It was easier to have the transfer, processing and conversion done server-side. That's why I was trying to do the editing on Commons:VideoCutTool too. In theory, it's an ideal tool for trimming a few seconds off the beginning and end of a video, but it just hasn't worked for me. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)