Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Roller Coasters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 'Better than RCDB'?

Why try? This is a totally different project, and with RCDB, Duane has contacts which enable him to fact check and report facts. Instead of trying to be better, why not try for something different? RCDB is a different type of resource. This is like an 'encylopedia' of Coasters, RCDB is a Database of Coasters.~Tekno

RCDB's main "thing" is stats and pictures of every past and present roller coaster. While, realistically, we'll probably never end up covering every single coaster, we can certainly cover each individual coaster better than RCDB does. For example, compare http://www.rcdb.com/id2832.htm to Kingda Ka. Which one, in this case, is better? Also, how does the fact that we're making an encyclopedia of coasters rather than a database mean that we can't cover every coaster? Dusso Janladde 20:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That isn't the point. A Data Base is a listing of facts, it isn't RCDB's 'thing'. It simply is as such. An encyclopedia contains articles on a subject. Duane and Co. do a great job of gathering facts and pictures and stats. He knows the right people, and his facts are usually flawless based on information from the source. You can't say that you 'cover each individual coaster better than RCDB' does because what you do is different. You give more indepth detail than RCDB, that doesn't make it Better. Better is strictly subjective, but the fact is that RCDB.com is a database that does what it does and nothing more. Likely it never will. This project can never be 'better than' RCDB in that it isn't the same thing. You're comparing Apples to Oranges. An Encyclopedia of any kind is not a replacement for a Database. They are simply too different (no matter how similar the subjects are) to compare. Does your Kingda Ka article have more information about the ride listed? Yes, it does. How much of that is 100% fact and not opinion? That can be debated. However, Having an article about a roller coaster is far different than having a database listing of the same coaster that just lists stats and pictures. And not only that, but You aim to be an authority on Coasters when anyone could go in and change opinions to stated fact and vice versa. That can't happen at RCDB, and thus RCDB will always be considered a more factual source for information than this.~Tekno

[edit] Naming convention

Per the discussion on the Roller coaster page, please user "Roller coaster" instead of "Roller Coaster" in naming wiki items. Thx. SpikeJones 13:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but it would probably be a little much to move the whole thing to Wikipedia:WikiProject Roller coasters. Dusso Janladde 06:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, but for those items that mattered that were already listed, I did go through and change references that would have led to dead links or confusion otherwise. Best example would be for the Roller coaster template or infobox (or the Project Box that's been added to the RC pages) -- something that hasn't been created yet but proposed. SpikeJones 12:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

I'm thinking that maybe it would be a good idea to add RCDB links to the coaster stats template (the same way that movies have a link to IMDB) WillMcC 16:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ingenieur Büro Stengel GmbH

I have no idea who they are, but they're listed as the designer for a LOT of coasters, so we definitely need an article on them. I've checked the German Wikipedia, they don't have anything either. Dusso Janladde 06:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this is a company formed by Werner Stengel, legendary coaster engineer. He's worked on some of the big rides from Intamin AG like Kingda Ka and Millennium Force. In fact, there's an article on him, but I didn't see one for the company which has a website at http://www.rcstengel.com/ Stratosphere 02:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

While you're creating the infobox for roller coasters, not only take a look at RCDB, but also keep in mind the RC article that mentions the elements that are required for a coaster (rider experience, height, track design, mechanics, etc.) Don't make the template more complicated than it needs to be. SpikeJones 13:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kilocoaster?

Is there precedent for this designation? I've never heard of a roller coaster between 100 and 199 feet being refered to as a "kilocoaster." I googled the term and the only references to the term were this page and answers.com which gets it's information from Wikipedia. Stratosphere 22:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LimmyLand

Hi, anybody here know anything about LimmyLand? I've been trying to find some Reliable sources for the information on that page but I'm not having much luck. I wonder if the page isn't a Practical joke. Anybody heard about the B&M Hypercoaster thats apparently due to open at the park in 2006? --ericthefish 08:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Launched Coasters

The articles Launch track and Launched roller coaster seem to be for the most part redundant, but each contains slightly different information. Would it be useful to merge them (I'm not sure which way) and replace one of them with a redirect? --R'nway 17:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Beast (roller coaster)

Does anyone have a GFDL-compliant photo of this wooden marvel? It's way to bad-ass of a coaster to go without an image on wikipedia. youngamerican (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] participant

I'm not quite sure as to the protocol of adding myself to a WikiProject, as this is my first one.. I have added my user name to the list of participants... leave a message on my talk page regarding this WikiProject

[edit] Dab pages

The guidelines say to use Coaster Name (roller coaster) instead of Coaster Name (disambiguation). However, if the coaster name refers to several coasters and several non-coaster items, should we create both articles and link (dab) to (roller coaster), or just use (dab)?. --Phantom784 12:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point, it would probably be better to just use (dab), having one dab page link to another would not be good. Dusso Janladde 20:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brain Teaser

Brain Teaser is up for deletion via WP:AFD. This isn't my article, but if it's deleted, it sets the prescident for many small coasters to be deleted, such as Mild Thing, which runs counter to this Wikiproject and also will make a lot of park templates look dumb and/or be incomplete, since they can't include all coasters. Anyone who disagrees with this deletion should comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain Teaser ASAP --Rehcsif 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category reorg

I propose moving Category:Wooden roller coasters and Category:Steel roller coasters directly underneath Category:Roller coasters, rather than under the subcat Category:Types of roller coasters. Wood and Steel seem to be on a different level than the other types (racing, bobsled, launched, etc), and it currently makes it hard to browse the category list to find whether a specific coaster currently has an article. Comments? --Rehcsif 18:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree Dddstone 19:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. Done. Dusso Janladde 20:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed course of action if Brain Teaser is deleted

If the result of Brain Teaser's AfD is to delete and merge with Six Flags Darien Lake, it will set a precedent for deleting articles on "kiddie coasters". Probably the main reason why it was nominated was that, aside from the infobox and park template, it was just one sentence. So, if the article is deleted and the precedent set, this is what I propose we do:

  1. Modify {{Infobox roller coaster}} so that its auto-categorization can be turned off, such as with a "categorize" parameter with a default value of "yes", where a value of "no" would not place the article in which the infobox is used into any categories. This would allow it to be used on articles other than coaster articles without placing the article into inappropriate categories.
  2. For new articles on kiddie coasters (leave existing ones as articles unless someone AfD's them), start them as a section on the park's page, using the infobox with auto-categorization turned off. Link the park template to the coaster's section.
  3. Once the section on the coaster can no longer be considered a stub and has at least one picture, move it to its own article and link the park template to the article.

All of this, of course, would only apply to "kiddie coasters". For ALL other coasters, we will maintain our current course of action. Dusso Janladde 20:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Good news! The article survived AFD. Now we need to concentrate on getting 'real' articles for all coasters, particularly the smaller ones that people might consider "non-notable" unless we work to prove that they are worth keeping. It's hard to defend a kiddie-coaster article with only a few sentences in it... --Rehcsif 21:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Hi im new and I have a suggestion (btw how do you add your name to the list of wikipedians in the project?) Before we start making all the new rollercoaster pages wouldnt it be a better idea to create the pages for all the missing manufacturers on the list? And all the track types (figure of 8, mobius ect). This would make it easier to link back to these pages as we create rollercoaster pages --Hydro the Water Wizard 16:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joining Project

Hey, I've added my name to the list, and contact me on my talk page for stuff regarding the project. :)
- Marvin x Gaara 20:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Videos

On a recent trip to two theme parks in Texas, I took high quality videos from two different roller coasters (the Great White and The Rattler) using a snuck-aboard camera. Unfortunately, they're (obviously) large, and I can't post them to Wikipedia (POST size too large) and I don't have the bandwidth to host them. They'd make great additions to the articles, but I don't know how to deal with them. Suggestions? Email me at meqme@daqughtersoftiqresias.org (remove qs to despammify). -- Rei 04:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

One thing that comes to mind is hosting them on YouTube, and linking as an external link. But there's a sub-movement on Wikipedia (which I oppose) to delete external links to any site with ads (with few exceptions) and I've seen a number of YouTube-hosted video links get axed just because of this. (personal rant: the "keep it free, right down to the external links" community here in WP is way too militant for the good of the encyclopedia. After all, people have to pay for bandwith somehow -- I even have ads on my personal site which doesn't make me rich, but does help pay the expenses of the otherwise hobby site... ) --Rehcsif 04:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance Scale

I have noticed that an importance scale has been added to the {{RollerCoasterProject}} template. I have a suggestion on how to rate roller coaster related articles. It is as follows:

  • Top Class: The roller coaster article and other fundanmental articles on how roller coasters work
  • High Class: Major roller coasters, particularly record-breakers (i.e. Kingda Ka); major parks (i.e. Cedar Point), and major park chains (i.e. Cedar Fair, L.P.)
  • Mid class: Most roller coasters, small parks, small park chains, ride manufactures, coaster design firms, and coaster types
  • Low class: Junior coasters, kiddy coasters, and specific coaster elements

Comments? --Coaster1983 14:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The biggest issue will be that some people will classify their favorite coaster as "higher class" than the others; there is still some subjectivity in your definitions. SpikeJones 20:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't get it. As noted by SpikeJones, this is all subjective -- and subjective stuff doesn't really have a place in an encyclopedia. Is this supposed to be used as a "for project use only" field to denote how much time we should spend on different articles? In any case, I suggest removing the "importance" field altogether, unless someone wants to defend/justify it.--Rehcsif 21:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed (to both SpikeJones and Rehcsif) that this a subjective list. In checking the importance of topic scale, I found that even that section admits that this is subjective in order to determine what goes in the 0.5 and 1.0 static versions of Wikipedia. They have the following scale:
Need: The article's priority or importance, regardless of its quality
Top Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia
High Subject contributes a depth of knowledge
Mid Subject fills in more minor details
Low Subject is mainly of specialist interest.
I tried to stick that scale, which is why I put the main roller coaster article as "Top Class" since it would be a "must have". I put the coaster element article as "Low Class" since these deal with specific elements. The subjectivity, though, comes in the high and mid classes, as SpikeJones pointed out. This is were we need to come to a consensus or, as Rehcsif suggested, drop the importance scale altogether. As far as I am concerned, I would support either option if the consensus calls for it. I brought this up because I saw the blank fields and figured something needed to be done.--Coaster1983 22:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you're sticking with that scale, then try to fit to that scale instead of recategorizing the coaster articles into buckets of their own. The question is where you would draw the line for individual coaster articles -- which ones are "must haves for print" (practically none, other than the primary article). High-Class would be any articles related to coaster definitions that help support/explain the primary article (the coaster elements, for example). Only rarely would an individual coaster article fall into the High-Class level -- such as the Coney Island Cyclone -- those would be major exceptions. The bulk of coaster articles, quite frankly, would probably fall under low-class (being of specialty interest)... unless the article is complete with regards to history, photos, notable status, etc, contains multiple paragraphs of useful information about the coaster... and is NOT a stub, in which case an argument could be made that the article could fit as mid-class. SpikeJones 23:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

After I read your comments, that is what I am thinking. It does make sense to me to put most of the articles at "Low-Class" since the coasters are minor in the scheme of things. I put that scale up with the full expectation that it would be revised once discussion started. It essential was rough draft and that is how I intended it.--Coaster1983 00:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's always better to assume all articles are at the lowest level and then move specific articles up the chain as exceptions, then it is to put all articles at a high level and then defend why certain ones should be moved down. Try to come up with rules about when to advance an article upwards from LOW to MID, such as "Is complete enough to no longer be classified as a stub article", etc. Rules that have definitive, instead of subjective (as best you can) answers. SpikeJones 01:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'm unclear as to what is attempting to be accomplished here. Why do we need to rate things? Why not just work on improving the articles? --Rehcsif 04:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
As the editor who added importance and class to the roller coaster template I agree with your initial categorization scheme Coaster1983. This is almost exactly the criteria I have been using on the CP coasters (since these are the ones I am most familar with. Best, Irongargoyle 01:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Height of Terrain Coasters

There is a bit of a disagreement on the page Dragon Mountain regarding how tall terrain coasters are. I argue that the highest to the lowest point (186 ft.) is a the best assessment of height, per www.rcdb.com's entry for Dragon Mountain. Other sites provide a substantially lower height of 80 ft. (although this is not cited in the article). RCDB seems to be generally regarded as our most reliable source. I argue that we use their value of 186, given that changing these criteria would result in the height for any particular terrain coaster being put into an uncertain state. Best, Irongargoyle 04:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

Wikipedia Assessments within AWB. Click on the image to see it in better resolution
Enlarge
Wikipedia Assessments within AWB. Click on the image to see it in better resolution

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

  • Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
  • Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 14:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
  • User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
  • User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 23:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template for deletion

I thought the TfD for {{Noteworthy Amusement Parks}} somewhat concerns this wikiproject, so I thought I would mention it here. Irongargoyle 02:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Good call. I'm a member of this project, and it was me who brought it up for deletion. I think the current template is a mess (way to large) and there's no criterion for what "noteworthy" means. It's pretty much a templatized category now... Plus nobody would discuss how to improve it on the template's talk page. --Rehcsif 03:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User 71.201.171.158 rewriting articles

I've noticed that 71.201.171.158 (talk • contribs) has been completely rewriting articles about SFGAm coasters. In some cases, the articles are expanded, but the quality is significantly poorer than the original article (ie. removal of infobox, graphics, typos, etc.) I'm sure that some of this user's contributions could be used, but I'm suspecting that some of it is plagiarized

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Roller_Coasters_b68c.html"